THE HOLY LIGHT AND THE
SHEW BREAD: THE BLASPHEMER’S END
Lev 24:1-23
IT is not easy to determine with confidence the association of
thought which occasioned the interposition of this chapter, with its
somewhat disconnected contents, between chapter 23, on the set times
of holy convocation, and chapter 25, on the sabbatic and jubilee
years, which latter would seem most naturally to have followed the
former immediately, as relating to the same subject of sacred times.
Perhaps the best explanation of the connection with the previous
chapter is that which finds it in the reference to the olive oil for
the lamps and the meal for the shew bread. The feast of tabernacles,
directions for which had just been given, celebrated the completed
ingathering of the harvest of the year, both of grain and of fruit;
and here Israel is told what is to be done with a certain portion of
each.
THE ORDERING OF THE LIGHT
IN THE HOLY PLACE
Lev 24:1-4
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children of
Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the
light, to cause a lamp to burn continually. Without the veil of the
testimony, in the tent of meeting, shall Aaron order it from evening
to morning before the Lord continually: it shall be a statute
forever throughout your generations. He shall order the lamps upon
the pure candlestick before the Lord continually."
First (Lev 24:1-4) is given the direction for the ordering of the
daily light, which was to burn from evening until morning in the
holy place continually. The people themselves are to furnish the oil
for the seven-branched candlestick out of the product of their olive
yards. The oil is to be "pure," carefully cleansed from leaves and
all impurities; and "beaten," that is, not extracted by heat and
pressure, as are inferior grades, but simply by beating and
macerating the olives with water, -a process which gives the very
best. The point in these specifications is evidently this, that for
this, as always, they are to give to God’s service the very best,
-an eternal principle which rules in all acceptable service to God.
The oil is to come from the people in general, so that the
illuminating of the Holy Place, although specially tended by the
high priest, is yet constituted a service in which all the children
of Israel have some part. The oil was to be used to supply the seven
lamps upon the golden candlestick which was placed on the south side
of the Holy Place, without the veil of the testimony, in the tent of
meeting. This Aaron was to "order from evening to morning before the
Lord continually." According to Exo 25:31-40, this candlestick-or,
more properly, lampstand-was made of a single shaft, with three
branches on either side, each with a cup at the end like an almond
blossom; so that, with that on the top of the central shaft, it was
a stand of seven lamps, in a conventional imitation of an almond
tree.
The significance of the symbol is brought clearly before us in Zec
4:1-14, where the seven-branched candlestick symbolises Israel as
the congregation of God, the giver of the light of life to the
world. And yet a lamp can burn only as it is supplied with oil and
trimmed and cared for. And so in the symbol of Zechariah the prophet
sees the golden candlestick supplied with oil conveyed through two
golden pipes into which flowed the golden oil, mysteriously
self-distilled from two olive trees on either side the candlestick.
And the explanation given is this: "Not by might, nor by power, but
by My Spirit," saith the Lord. Thus we learn that the golden
seven-branched lampstand denotes Israel, more precious than gold in
God’s sight, appointed of Him to be the giver of light to the world.
And yet by this requisition of oil for the golden candlestick the
nation was reminded that their power to give light was dependent
upon the supply of the heavenly grace of God’s Spirit, and the
continual ministrations of the priest in the Holy Place, And how
this ordering of the light might be a symbolic act of worship, we
can at once see, when we recall the word of Jesus: {Mat 5:14; Mat
5:16} "Ye are the light of the world. Let your light shine before
men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father
which is in heaven."
How pertinent for instruction still in "all its deepest teaching is
this ordinance of the lamp continually burning in the presence of
the Lord, is vividly brought before us in the Apocalypse," {Rev
1:12-13} where we read that seven candlesticks appeared in vision to
the Apostle John; and Christ, in His glory, robed in high priestly
vesture, was seen walking up and down, after the manner of Aaron, in
the midst of the seven candlesticks, in care and watch of the manner
of their burning. And as to the significance of this vision, the
Apostle was expressly told (Rev 1:20) that the seven candlesticks
were the seven Churches of Asia, -types of the collective Church in
all the centuries. Thus, as in the language of this Levitical
symbol, we are taught that in the highest sense it is the office of
the Church to give light in darkness; but that she can only do this
as the heavenly oil is supplied, and each lamp is cared for, by the
high priestly ministrations of her risen Lord.
THE "BREAD OF THE
PRESENCE"
Lev 24:5-9
"And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof:
two tenth parts of an ephah shall be in one cake. And thou shalt set
them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the Lord.
And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be
to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the
Lord. Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before the Lord
continually; it is on the behalf of the children of Israel, an
everlasting covenant. And it shall be for Aaron and his sons; and
they shall eat it in a holy place: for it is most holy unto him of
the offerings of the Lord made by fire by a perpetual statute."
Next follows the ordinance for the preparation and presentation of
the "shew bread," lit., " bread of the Face," or "Presence," of God.
This was to consist of twelve cakes, each to be made of two tenth
parts of an ephah of fine flour, which was to be placed in two rows
or piles, "upon the pure table" of gold that stood before the Lord,
in the Holy Place, opposite to the golden candlestick. On each pile
was to be placed (Lev 24:7) "pure frankincense,"-doubtless, as
tradition says, placed in the golden spoons, or little cups. {Exo
37:16} Every sabbath (Lev 24:8-9) fresh bread was to be so placed,
when the old became the food of Aaron and his sons only, as
belonging to the order of things "most holy"; the frankincense which
had been its "memorial" having been first burned, "an offering made
by fire unto the Lord" (Lev 24:7). Tradition adds that the bread was
always unleavened; a few have called this in question, but this has
been only on theoretic grounds, and without evidence; and when we
remember how stringent was the prohibition of leaven even in any
offerings made by fire upon the altar of the outer court, much less
is it likely that it could have been tolerated here in the Holy
Place immediately before the veil.
This bread of the Presence must be regarded as in its essential
nature a perpetual meal offering, -the meal offering of the Holy
Place, as the others were of the outer court. The material was the
same, cakes of fine flour; to this frankincense must be added as a
"memorial," as in the meal offerings of the outer court. Such part
of the offering as was not burned, as in the case of the others, was
to be eaten by the priests only, as a thing "most holy." It differed
from those in that there were always the twelve cakes, one for each
tribe; and in that while they were repeatedly offered, this lay
before the Lord continually. The altar of burnt offering might
sometimes be empty of the meal offering, but the table of shew
bread, "the table of the Presence," never.
In general, therefore, the meaning of the offering of the shew bread
must be the same as. that of the meal offerings; like them it
symbolised the consecration unto the Lord of the product of the
labour of the hands, and especially of the daily food as prepared
for use. But in this, by the twelve cakes for the twelve tribes it
was emphasised that God requires, not only such consecration of
service and acknowledgment of Him from individuals, as in the law of
chapter 2, but from the nation in its collective and organised
capacity; and that not merely on such occasions as pious impulse
might direct, but continuously.
In these days, when the tendency among us is to an extreme
individualism, and therewith to an ignoring or denial of any claim
of God upon nations and communities as such, it is of great need to
insist upon this thought thus symbolised. It was not enough in God’s
sight that individual Israelites should now and then offer their
meal offerings; the Lord required a meal offering "on behalf of the
children of Israel" as a whole, and of each particular tribe of the
twelve, each in its corporate capacity. There is no reason to think
that in the Divine government the principle which took this symbolic
expression is obsolete. It is not enough that individuals among us
consecrate the fruit of their labours to the Lord. The Lord requires
such consecration of every nation collectively; and of each of the
subdivisions in that nation, such as cities, towns, states,
provinces, and so on. Yet where in the wide world can we see one
such consecrated nation? Can we find one such consecrated province
or state, or even such a city or town? Where then, from this
biblical and spiritual point of view, is the ground for the
religious boasting of the Christian progress of our day which one
sometimes hears? Must we not say, "It is excluded"?
Typically, the shew bread, like the other meal offerings with their
frankincense, must foreshadow the work of the Messiah in holy
consecration; and, in particular, as the One in whom the ideal of
Israel was perfectly realised, and who thus represented in His
person the whole Israel of God. But the bread of the Presence
represents His holy obedience in self-consecration, not merely, as
in the other meal offerings, presented in the outer court, in the
sight of men, as in His earthly life; but here, rather, as
continually presented before the "Face of God," in the Holy Place,
where Christ appears in the presence of God for us. And in this
symbolism, which has been already justified, we may recognise the
element of truth that there is in the view held by Bahr, apparently,
as by others, that the shew bread typified Christ Himself regarded
as the bread of life to His people. Not indeed, precisely, that
Christ Himself is brought before us here, but rather His holy
obedience, continually offered unto God in the heavenly places, in
behalf of the true Israel, and as sealing and confirming the
everlasting covenant; -this is what this symbol brings before us.
And it is as we by faith appropriate Him, as thus ever presenting
His holy life to God for us, that He becomes for us the Bread of
Life.
THE PENALTY OF BLASPHEMY
Lev 24:10-23
"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;
and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and
cursed: and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother’s name was
Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put
him in ward, that it might be declared unto them at the mouth of the
Lord. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that
hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their
hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And
thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever
curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name
of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation
shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as the homehorn,
when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord. shall be put to death. And
he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death; and
he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life.
And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so
shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered
unto him. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good: and he
that killeth a man shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner
of law, as well for the stranger, as for the homeborn: for I am the
Lord your God. And Moses spake to the children of Israel, and they
brought forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him
with stones. And the children of Israel did aa the Lord commanded
Moses."
The connection of this section with the preceding context is now
impossible to determine. Very possibly its insertion here may be due
to the occurrence here described having taken place at the time of
the delivery of the preceding laws concerning the oil for the golden
lampstand and the shew bread. However, the purport and intention of
the narrative is very plain, namely, to record the law delivered by
the Lord for the punishment of blasphemy; and therewith also His
command that the penalty of broken law, both in this case and in
others specified, should be exacted both from native Israelites and
from foreigners alike.
The incident which was the occasion of the promulgation of these
laws was as follows. The son of an Israelitish woman by an Egyptian
husband fell into a quarrel in the camp. As often happens in such
cases, the one sin led on to another and yet graver sin; the
half-caste man "blasphemed the Name, and cursed"; whereupon he was
arrested and put into confinement until the will of the Lord might
be ascertained in his case. "The Name" is of course the name of God;
the meaning is that he used the holy name profanely in cursing. The
passage, together with Lev 24:16, is of special and curious
interest, as upon these two the Jews have based their well-known
belief that it is unlawful to utter the Name which we commonly
vocalise as Jehovah; whence it has followed that wherever in the
Hebrew text the Name occurs it is written with the vowels of Adonay
"Lord," to indicate to the reader that this word was to be
substituted for the proper name, -a usage which is represented in
the Septuagint by the appearance of the Greek word Kurios, " Lord,"
in all places where the Hebrew has Jehovah (or Yahveh); and which,
in both the authorised and revised versions, is still maintained in
the retention of "Lord" in all such cases, -a relic of Jewish
superstition which one could greatly wish that the Revisers had
banished from the English version, especially as in many passages it
totally obscures to the English reader the exact sense of the text,
wherever it turns upon the choice of this name. It is indeed true
that the word rendered "blaspheme" has the meaning "to pronounce,"
as the Targumists and other Hebrew writers render it; but that it
also means simply to "revile," and in many places cannot possibly be
rendered "to pronounce," is perforce admitted even by Jewish
scholars. To give it the other meaning here were so plainly foreign
to the spirit of the Old Testament, debasing reverence to
superstition, that no argument against it will be required with any
but a Jew.
And this young man, in the heat of his passion, "reviled the Name."
The words "of the Lord" are not in the Hebrew; the name "Jehovah" is
thus brought before us expressively as THE NAME, par excellence, of
God, as revealing Himself in covenant for man’s redemption.
Horrified at the man’s wickedness, "they brought him unto Moses";
and "they put him inward" (Lev 24:12), "that it might be declared
unto them at the mouth of the Lord" what should be done unto him.
This was necessary because the case involved two points upon which
no revelation had been made: first, as to what should be the
punishment of blasphemy; and secondly, whether the law in such cases
applied to a foreigner as well as to the native Israelite. The
answer of God decided these points. As to the first (Lev 24:15),
"Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin," i.e., he shall be
held subject to punishment; and (Lev 24:16), "He that blasphemeth
the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death; all the
congregation shall certainly stone him." And as to the second point,
it is added, "as well the stranger, as the homeborn, when he
blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death."
Then follows (Lev 24:17-21) a declaration of penalties for murder,
for killing a neighbour’s beast, and for inflicting a bodily injury
on one’s neighbour. These were to be settled on the principle of the
lex talionis, life for life, "breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth
for tooth"; in the case of the beast killed, its value was to be
made good to the owner. All these laws had been previously given; {Exo
21:12; Exo 21:23-36} but are repeated here plainly for the purpose
of expressly ordering that these laws, like that now declared for
blasphemy, were to be applied alike to the home born and the
stranger (Lev 24:22).
Much cavil have these laws occasioned, the more so that Christ
Himself is cited as having condemned them in the Sermon on the
Mount. {Mat 5:38-42} But how little difficulty really exists here
will appear from the following considerations. The Jews from of old
have maintained that the law of "an eye for eye," as here given, was
not intended to authorise private and irresponsible retaliation in
kind, but only after due trial and by legal process. Moreover, even
in such cases, they have justly remarked that the law here given was
not meant to be applied always with the most exact literality; but
that it was evidently intended to permit the commutation of the
penalty by such a fine as the judges might determine.
They justly argue from the explicit prohibition of the acceptance of
any such satisfaction in commutation in the case of a murderer {Num
35:31-32} that this implies the permission of it in the instances
here mentioned; -a conclusion the more necessary when it is observed
that the literal application of the law in all cases would often
result in defeating the very ends of exact justice which it was
evidently intended to secure. For instance, the loss by a one-eyed
man of his only eye, under such an interpretation, would be much
more than an equivalent for the loss of an eye which he had
inflicted upon a neighbour who had both eyes. Hence, Jewish history
contains no record of the literal application of the law in such
cases; the principle is applied as often among ourselves, in the
exaction from an offender of a pecuniary satisfaction proportioned
to the degree of the disability he has inflicted upon his neighbour.
Finally, as regards the words of our Saviour, that He did not intend
His words to be taken in their utmost stretch of literality in all
cases, is plain from His own conduct when smitten by the order of
the high priest, {Joh 18:23} and from the statement that the
magistrate is endowed with the sword, as a servant of God, to be a
terror to evil-doers; {Rom 13:4} from which it is plain that Christ
did not mean to prohibit the resort to judicial process under all
circumstances, but rather the spirit of retaliation and litigation
which sought to justify itself by a perverse appeal to this law of
"an eye for eye";-a law which, in point of fact, was given, as
Augustine has truly observed, not "as an incitement to, but for the
mitigation of wrath."
The narrative then ends with the statement (Lev 24:23) that Moses
delivered this law to the children of Israel, who then, according to
the commandment of the Lord, took the blasphemer out of the camp,
when all that heard him blaspheme laid their hands upon his head, in
token that they thus devolved on him the responsibility for his own
death; and then the congregation stoned the criminal with stones
that he died (Lev 24:23).
The chief lesson to be learned from this incident and from the law
here given is very plain. It is the high criminality in God’s sight
of all irreverent use of His holy name. To a great extent in earlier
days this was recognised by Christian governments; and in the Middle
Ages the penalty of blasphemy in many states of Christendom, as in
the Mosaic code and in many others, although not death, was yet
exceedingly severe. The present century, however, has seen a great
relaxation of law, and still more of public sentiment, in regard to
this crime, -a change which, from a Christian point of view, is a
matter for anything but gratulation. Reverence for God lies at the
very foundation of even common morality. Our modern atheism and
agnosticism may indeed deny this, and yet, from the days of the
French Revolution to the present, modern history has been
presenting, in one land and another, illustrations of the fact which
are pregnant with most solemn warning. And while no one could wish
that the crime of blasphemy should be punished with torture and
cruelty, as in some instances in the Middle Ages, yet the more
deeply one thinks on this subject in the light of the Scripture and
of history, the more. if we mistake not, will it appear that it
might be far better for us, and might argue a far more hopeful and
wholesome condition of the public sentiment than that which now
exists, if still, as in Mosaic days and sometimes in the Middle
Ages, death were made the punishment for this crime; -a crime which
not only argues the extreme of depravity in the criminal, but which,
if overlooked by the State, or expiated with any light penalty,
cannot but operate most fatally by breaking down in the public
conscience that profound reverence toward God which is the most
essential condition of the maintenance of all private and public
morality.
In this point of view, not to speak of other considerations, it is
not surprising that the theocratic law here provides that blasphemy
shall be punished with death in the case of the foreigner as well as
the native Israelite. This sin, like those of murder and violence
with which it is here conjoined, is of such a kind that to every
conscience which is not hopelessly hardened, its wickedness must be
manifest even from the very light of nature. Nature itself is
sufficient to teach anyone that abuse and calumny of the Supreme
God, the Maker and Ruler of the world, -a Being who, if He exist at
all, must be infinitely good, -must be a sin involving quite
peculiar and exceptional guilt. Hence, absolute equity, no less.
than governmental wisdom, demanded that the law regarding blasphemy,
as that with respect to the other crimes here mentioned, should be
impartially enforced upon both the native Israelite and the
foreigner.
|