- English
- King James KJV
- Complete Jewish CJB
- World English WEBM
- Berean Standard BSB
- American Standard ASV
- Geneva GNV
- Young's Literal YLT
- Douay-Rheims DRC
- International
- Shqip ALB
- العربية SVD
- বাংলা BN-IRV
- မြန်မာ Judson
- 简体文 CUV-S
- 繁體中文 CUV-T
- Čeština BKR
- Nederlands STVE
- Français LSG
- Deutsch SCH
- Ελληνικά Vamvas
- ગુજરાતી GU-IRV
- Hausa HCB
- עברית Hebrew
- हिन्दी HCV
- Magyar KAROLI
- Bahasa Indonesia INDO-TB
- Italiano Diodati
- 日本語 Kougo
- 한국어 Korean
- മലയാളം MAL
- मराठी MRCV
- Norsk DNB
- فارسی OPV
- Polski BG
- Português Almeida
- Română Cornilescu
- Русский Synodal
- Español RVG
- Kiswahili Neno
- Svenska SV1917
- Tagalog TAG-ADB
- தமிழ் TCV
- తెలుగు TSA
- ภาษาไทย THAI-KJV
- Українська Ohienko
- Tiếng Việt CADMAN
- Yorùbá YCB
Study this verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Leviticus 24:10–23. His two-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
Evil manners, we say, beget good laws. We have here an account of the evil manners of a certain nameless mongrel Israelite, and the good laws occasioned thereby.
I.The offender was the son of an Egyptian father and an Israelitish mother (Lev 24:10); his mother was of the tribe of Dan, Lev 24:11.
Neither he nor his father is named, but his mother only, who was an Israelite. This notice is taken of his parentage either,
1.To intimate what occasioned the quarrel he was engaged in. The Jews say, "He offered to set up his tent among the Danites in the right of his mother, but was justly opposed by some or other of that tribe, and informed that his father being an Egyptian he had no part nor lot in the matter, but must look upon himself as a stranger." Or,
2.To show the common ill effect of such mixed marriages. When a daughter of Israel would marry an idolatrous malignant Egyptian, what could be the fruit of such a marriage but a blasphemer? For the children will be apt to take after the worse side, whichsoever it is, and will sooner learn of an Egyptian father to blaspheme than of an Israelitish mother to pray and praise.
II.The occasion of the offence was contention:
He strove with a man of Israel. The mixed multitude of Egyptians that came up with Israel (Exo 12:38) were in many ways hurtful to them, and this was one, they were often the authors of strife. The way to preserve the peace of the church is to preserve the purity of it. In this strife he broke out into ill language. Note, When quarrels begin we know not what mischief they will make before they end, nor how treat a matter a little fire may kindle. When men's passion is up they are apt to forget both their reason and their religion, which is a good reason why we should not be apt either to give or to resent provocation, but leave off strife before it be meddled with, because the beginning of it is as the letting forth of water.
III.The offence itself was blasphemy and cursing, Lev 24:11.
It is supposed that his cause came to be heard before the judges, who determined that he had no right to the privileges of an Israelite, his father being an Egyptian, and that, being enraged at the sentence,
1.He blasphemed the name of the Lord. He blasphemed the name, that is, he blasphemed God, who is known by his name only, not by his nature, or any similitude. Not as if God were a mere name, but his is a name above every name. The translators add of the Lord, which is implied, but not expressed, in the original, for the greater reverence of the divine Majesty: it is a shame that it should be found on record that the very name of Jehovah should be blasphemed; tell it not in Gath. It is a fond conceit of the superstitious Jews that his blasphemy was in pronouncing the name of Jehovah, which they call ineffable: he that made himself known by that name never forbade the calling of him by that name. It is probable that finding himself aggrieved by the divine appointment, which separated between the Israelites and strangers, he impudently reproached both the law and the Law-maker, and set him at defiance.
2.He cursed either God himself (and then his cursing was the same with blaspheming) or the person with whom he strove. Imprecations of mischief are the hellish language of hasty passion, as well as of rooted malice. Or perhaps he cursed the judges that gave sentence against him; he flew in the face of the court, and ridiculed the processes of it; thus he added sin to sin.
IV.The caution with which he was proceeded against for this sin.
The witnesses or inferior judges brought him and his case (which was somewhat extraordinary) unto Moses (Lev 24:11), according to the order settled (Exo 18:22), and Moses himself would not give judgment hastily, but committed the offender into custody, till he had consulted the oracle in this case. Note, Judges must deliberate; both those that give the verdict and those that give the sentence must consider diligently what they do, and do nothing rashly, for the judgment is God's (Deu 1:17), and before him there will be a rehearing of the cause. They waited to know what was the mind of the Lord, whether he was to be put to death by the hand of the magistrate or to be left to the judgment of God: or, rather, they wanted to know whether he should be stoned, as those were to be that only cursed their parents (Jdg 20:9), or whether, the crime being so much greater, some sorer punishment should be inflicted on him. Note, Those that sit in judgment should sincerely desire, and by prayer and the use of all good means should endeavour to know the mind of the Lord, because they judge for him (Ch2 19:6) and to him they are accountable.
V.Sentence passed upon this offender by the righteous Judge of heaven and earth himself:
Let all the congregation stone him, v. 14. God could have cut him off by an immediate stroke from heaven, but he would put this honour upon the institution of magistracy to make use of it for the supporting and vindicating of his own glory in the world. Observe, 1. The place of execution appointed: Bring him forth without the camp. To signify their detestation of the crime, they must thus cast out the criminal as an abominable branch, and separate him from them as an unclean thing and unworthy a place in the camp of Israel. 2. The executioners: Let all the congregation do it, to show their zeal for the honour of God's name. Every man should have a stone to throw at him that blasphemes God, reckoning himself nearly concerned in the reproaches cast on God, Psa 69:9. Thus also the greater terror would be cast upon the congregation; those that once helped to stone a blasphemer would ever after dread every thing that bordered upon blasphemy, that looked like it or looked towards it. 3. The solemnity of the execution; before the congregation stoned him, the witnesses were to lay their hands upon his head. The Jews say that this was used in the execution of no criminals but blasphemers; and that it was done with words to this purport, "Thy blood be upon thy own head, for thou thyself hast occasioned it. Let no blame be laid on the law, judges, juries, or witnesses; if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it."
VI.A standing law made upon this occasion for the stoning of blasphemers, Lev 24:15, Lev 24:16.
Magistrates are the guardians of both tables, and ought to be as jealous for the honour of God against those that speak contemptuously of his being and government as for the public peace and safety against the disturbers of them.
1.A great stress is laid upon this law, as in no case to be dispensed with: He shall surely be put to death; they shall certainly stone him. Those that lightly esteemed God's honour might think it hard to make a man an offender for a word (words are but wind); but God would let them know that they must not make light of such words as these, which come from malice against God in the heart of him that speaks, and must occasion either great guilt or great grief to those that hear.
2.It is made to extend to the strangers that sojourned among them, as well as those that were born in the land. God never made any law to compel strangers to be circumcised and embrace the Jewish religion (proselytes made by force would be no honour to the God of Israel), but he made a law to restrain strangers from speaking evil of the God of Israel.
3.He that was put to death for blasphemy is said to bear his sin, in the punishment of it; no sacrifice being appointed, on the head of which the sin might be transferred, he himself was to bear it upon his own head, as a sacrifice to divine justice. So his own tongue fell upon him (Psa 64:8), and the tongue of a blasphemer will fall heavily.
VII.A repetition of some other laws annexed to this new law.
1.That murder should be punished with death (Lev 24:17, and again Lev 24:21), according to an ancient law in Noah's time (Gen 9:6), and the very law of nature, Gen 4:10.
2.That maimers should in like manner be punished by the law of retaliation, Lev 24:19, Lev 24:20. Not that men might in these cases be their own avengers, but they might appeal to the civil magistrate, who should award suffering to the injurious and satisfaction to the injured as should be thought fit in proportion to the hurt done. This law we had before, Exo 22:4, Exo 22:5. And it was more agreeable to that dispensation, in which were revealed the rigour of the law and what sin deserved, than to the dispensation we are under, in which are revealed the grace of the gospel and the remission of sins: and therefore our Saviour has set aside this law (Mat 5:38, Mat 5:39), not to restrain magistrates from executing public justice, but to restrain us all from returning personal injuries and to oblige us to forgive as we are and hope to be forgiven.
3.That hurt done wilfully to a neighbour's cattle should be punished by making good the damage, Lev 24:18, Lev 24:21. Thus the divine law took not only their lives, but their goods also under its protection. Those beasts which belonged to no particular person, but were, as our law speaks, ferae naturae - of a wild nature, it was lawful for them to kill; but not those which any man had a property in. Does God take care for oxen? Yes; for our sakes he does.
4.That strangers, as well as native Israelites, should be both entitled to the benefit of this law, so as not to suffer wrong, and liable to the penalty of this law in case they did wrong. And, it should seem, this is it that brings in these laws here, to show how equitable it was that strangers as well as Israelites should be punished for blasphemy, because strangers as well as Israelites were punishable for other crimes. And there may be this further reason for the recognition of these laws here, God would hereby show what provision he had made for man's safety, in punishing those that were injurious to him, which should be an argument with magistrates to be jealous for his honour, and to punish those that blasphemed his name. If God took care for their comfort, they ought to take care for his glory.
VIII.The execution of the blasphemer.
Moses did, as it were, sign the warrant or it: He spoke unto the children of Israel to do it, and they did as the Lord commanded Moses, Lev 24:23. This teaches that death is the wages of sin, and that blasphemy in particular is an iniquity to be punished by the judges. But, if those who thus profane the name of God escape punishment from men, yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgments. This blasphemer was the first that died by the law of Moses. Stephen, the first that died for the gospel, died by the abuse of this law; the martyr and the malefactor suffered the same death: but how vast the difference between them!
Continue studying Leviticus 24:10 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
- BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
- Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
- ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
- NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
- STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
- BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
- USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
- BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
- StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
- BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
- Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
- Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
- Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
- SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Leviticus 24:10 introduces a pivotal narrative within the Mosaic Law, detailing a specific conflict that erupted in the Israelite camp. This seemingly isolated incident, involving a man of mixed Israelite and Egyptian heritage and a full-blooded Israelite, serves as the immediate catalyst for God's explicit and severe pronouncement regarding blasphemy and the sanctity of His divine name. The verse highlights the practical challenges of maintaining peace, order, and adherence to God's covenant within a diverse community, underscoring the necessity of divine justice to address escalating human contention and to uphold the absolute holiness of God.
Context
Literary Context
Leviticus 24:10 marks a significant and abrupt transition within the book of Leviticus. The preceding chapters (Leviticus 1-23) predominantly focus on the intricate details of the sacrificial system, the priesthood, and the various laws pertaining to ritual purity, holy days, and moral conduct, all designed to facilitate a holy people's approach to a holy God. Specifically, Leviticus 23 outlines the annual feasts, and Leviticus 24:1-9 describes the perpetual lamp oil and the bread of the Presence in the Tabernacle, detailing the sacred duties within the sanctuary. Suddenly, the text shifts from cultic instruction to a concrete legal case, demonstrating that God's holiness and laws are not merely theoretical but apply directly to the daily lives and disputes of His people. This narrative interruption serves to underscore the practical application and enforcement of the divine statutes, revealing that even seemingly mundane conflicts can have profound theological implications when God's name is involved.
Historical & Cultural Context
The setting is the Israelite wilderness encampment, a nascent nation comprising not only the descendants of Jacob but also a "mixed multitude" that had accompanied them out of Egypt, as noted in Exodus 12:38 and later associated with discontent in Numbers 11:4. The individual at the heart of this dispute, "the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian," embodies this diverse demographic. His mixed heritage likely presented unique challenges regarding identity, loyalty, and adherence to the nascent Mosaic Law, which was primarily given to Israel. The phrase "strove together in the camp" indicates a serious quarrel, suggesting that tensions could easily escalate within this large, newly formed community, making the establishment and enforcement of clear legal precedents crucial for maintaining social cohesion and divine order in a migratory and diverse society.
Key Themes
This verse contributes significantly to several key themes prevalent in Leviticus and the broader Pentateuch. Firstly, it highlights the sanctity of God's name, demonstrating that reverence for Yahweh's name is not merely an abstract concept but a practical requirement with severe consequences for violation, as articulated in the Third Commandment in Exodus 20:7. Secondly, it underscores the theme of holiness and purity within the community, showing that God's demand for holiness extends beyond ritual practices to the moral and social conduct of His people. The incident reveals the challenges of maintaining a holy community amidst human sin and diversity, echoing the broader call for Israel to "be holy, for I am holy" found throughout Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 19. Finally, it emphasizes the theme of divine justice and legal precedent, as this specific case provides the impetus for a new law regarding blasphemy, illustrating how God's law develops in response to real-world transgressions and establishes clear guidelines for maintaining order and accountability within the covenant community.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This word refers to a male offspring, but in its widest sense, it can denote a literal or figurative relationship, indicating lineage, membership, or even quality. Here, it is crucial for establishing the identity of the individual as "the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian," highlighting his mixed parentage and his connection, albeit partial, to the Israelite community. The term underscores the narrative's focus on identity and belonging within the covenant people.
This primitive root means "to go (causatively, bring) out," with a wide variety of literal and figurative applications. In this context, "went out among" suggests that the individual, despite his mixed heritage, was moving freely and publicly within the Israelite camp. This action sets the stage for the public nature of the ensuing conflict, implying that the dispute was not a private matter but one that occurred within the visible social fabric of the community, thus necessitating a public resolution and legal precedent.
This primitive root means "to go forth" or "to be expelled," but specifically, it means "to quarrel" or "to strive (together)." This word denotes a strong contention, a serious dispute, or even a fight. Its use here emphasizes the intensity and gravity of the altercation between the two men, indicating a heated confrontation that escalated beyond mere disagreement. This intense "striving" ultimately served as the catalyst for the blasphemous utterance, necessitating divine intervention and the establishment of a severe legal consequence.
Verse Breakdown
"And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father [was] an Egyptian,"
This opening clause introduces the main protagonist of the incident, immediately highlighting his unique and complex identity. His mother's Israelite lineage connects him to the covenant people, granting him a place, however ambiguous, within the camp. Conversely, his father's Egyptian origin links him to the nation from which Israel had recently been delivered, a detail that likely contributed to his outsider status and potentially a different understanding of Israelite customs and the sanctity of Yahweh's name. This mixed heritage sets the stage for the ensuing conflict, emphasizing the challenges of integrating diverse individuals into a unified, holy community.
"went out among the children of Israel:"
This phrase describes the individual's presence and movement within the Israelite encampment. It indicates that he was not isolated but was actively engaged in the community's daily life, suggesting that the conflict arose within the normal social interactions of the camp. The public nature of his presence underscores that the dispute was not a private affair but occurred in the midst of the congregation, making it a matter of public order and divine concern.
"and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;"
This final clause describes the core action of the verse: a direct and intense confrontation between the man of mixed heritage and a full-blooded Israelite. The phrase "strove together" (as highlighted in the Key Word Analysis) signifies a serious quarrel, implying a heated verbal or possibly physical altercation. The location "in the camp" further emphasizes that this was a public dispute, potentially disrupting the peace and order of the entire community and demanding a public resolution to uphold the sanctity of the camp and God's presence within it.
Literary Devices
Leviticus 24:10 employs several literary devices to convey its significance. The most prominent is Narrative Interruption, as this verse abruptly shifts from the detailed, prescriptive laws of the Tabernacle and feasts to a specific, real-world incident. This transition serves to bridge the gap between abstract divine commands and their concrete application in daily life, demonstrating that God's law is not theoretical but practical and enforceable. Furthermore, there is an element of Foreshadowing present; while the verse only describes a quarrel, the specific mention of the mixed heritage and the intensity of the dispute subtly hints at the greater transgression of blasphemy that is about to unfold in the subsequent verses. This initial conflict acts as a narrative trigger, setting the stage for a profound theological lesson. The verse also utilizes Contrast by juxtaposing the ideal of a holy, orderly community (as envisioned by the surrounding laws) with the reality of human conflict and sin that inevitably arises, even among God's chosen people, highlighting the constant need for divine intervention and clear legal statutes.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Leviticus 24:10 serves as a foundational narrative for understanding the sanctity of God's name, the challenges of maintaining a holy community, and the necessity of divine justice. The incident highlights that even within God's chosen people, human sin and conflict are ever-present realities, requiring clear divine statutes to govern behavior and uphold the covenant. The mixed heritage of the blasphemer underscores the complexity of integrating diverse peoples into a unified, holy nation, and the potential for external influences to challenge the purity of Israel's worship and conduct. This verse sets the stage for a critical legal precedent regarding the reverence due to God's name, establishing that blasphemy is not merely a verbal offense but a severe affront to God's very being and authority, demanding the gravest consequences to preserve the holiness of His presence among His people.
Reflection and Application
This ancient account from Leviticus 24:10 offers profound insights for contemporary believers and communities. It reminds us that conflicts are an inevitable part of human interaction, even within spiritual communities, and that our response to them is critical. The escalation of this dispute from a quarrel to blasphemy underscores the critical importance of addressing disagreements promptly and constructively, preventing them from festering into greater sins that dishonor God and harm relationships. Our words carry immense power, and this narrative serves as a stark reminder of the sanctity of God's name and the reverence we must maintain in all our speech, especially in moments of frustration or anger. Furthermore, it challenges us to consider how we integrate and interact with those from diverse backgrounds within our own communities, ensuring that unity in Christ transcends cultural or social differences, fostering an environment where all are encouraged to uphold God's standards of holiness, respect, and love. It calls us to be mindful of our influence and to strive for peace and reconciliation, reflecting God's character in our interactions.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Who was the "son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian"?
The text identifies him as the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian father. This detail signifies his mixed heritage, making him part of the "mixed multitude" that accompanied the Israelites out of Egypt, as mentioned in Exodus 12:38. While his mother's Israelite lineage connected him to the covenant people, his father's Egyptian background meant he was not a full-blooded Israelite. This mixed identity likely contributed to the unique circumstances of the conflict and the subsequent divine judgment, as his understanding of Israelite law and reverence for Yahweh might have differed from those born purely into the covenant, potentially leading to a greater propensity for disrespect towards God's holy name.
Why is this seemingly minor dispute recorded in Leviticus?
This incident is recorded not because the quarrel itself was inherently unique, but because it served as the immediate catalyst for a crucial divine pronouncement regarding blasphemy and the sanctity of God's name. Leviticus, as a book, is dedicated to outlining God's holiness and the means by which a sinful people can live in His presence. This narrative provides a real-world case study, demonstrating how God's laws were not abstract principles but were applied to concrete situations. The severity of the blasphemy that emerged from this "striving" necessitated a clear, uncompromising legal precedent, underscoring God's absolute demand for reverence for His name and the maintenance of order and holiness within His camp. It transforms a personal dispute into a foundational legal and theological lesson for all Israel, emphasizing that God's holiness pervades all aspects of life, not just the ritual.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Leviticus 24:10, with its depiction of conflict and the ensuing divine judgment on blasphemy, finds profound fulfillment and transformation in Christ. The Old Testament law, including the severe penalty for dishonoring God's name, highlighted humanity's inability to perfectly uphold God's holiness and the gravity of sin, revealing a desperate need for a perfect mediator. Jesus, however, perfectly honored the Father's name, declaring, "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world" in John 17:6. He is the ultimate fulfillment of the law's demands for holiness and justice, bearing the full weight of humanity's sin, including blasphemy, on the cross, thereby making atonement for those who would otherwise face condemnation. Furthermore, the conflict between the man of mixed heritage and the Israelite foreshadows the division between Jew and Gentile, a barrier that Christ ultimately broke down through His sacrifice, creating "one new humanity" in Himself, as described in Ephesians 2:14-16. In Christ, the "mixed multitude" of all nations are brought together into a unified body, the Church, where the sanctity of God's name is upheld not by the fear of stoning, but by the Spirit-empowered reverence and worship of a redeemed people who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, the name "that is above every name" (Philippians 2:9-11). He teaches us to resolve conflicts with grace (Matthew 5:9), to speak words that build up rather than tear down (Ephesians 4:29), and ultimately, to live in a manner that glorifies the Father's name, for which the Old Testament law laid the foundational principle, now perfectly embodied and fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ.