Skip to content

Leviticus 24:11

“The Case of the Blasphemer”· Leviticus 24:10–16Read in context
King James Version
And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:)
KJV (with Strong's)
And the Israelitish H3482 woman's H802 son H1121 blasphemed H5344 the name H8034 of the LORD, and cursed H7043. And they brought H935 him unto Moses H4872:(and his mother's H517 name H8034 was Shelomith H8019, the daughter H1323 of Dibri H1704, of the tribe H4294 of Dan H1835:)
Complete Jewish Bible
in the course of which the son of the woman of Isra'el uttered the Name [Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh] in a curse. So they brought him to Moshe. (His mother's name was Shlomit the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.)
Berean Standard Bible
The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse. So they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.)
American Standard Version
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.
World English Bible Messianic
The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him to Moses. His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.
Geneva Bible (1599)
So the Israelitish womans sonne blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed, and they brought him vnto Moses (his mothers name also was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan)
Young's Literal Translation
and the son of the Israelitish woman execrateth the Name, and revileth; and they bring him in unto Moses; and his mother's name is Shelomith daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan;
Translation
In the KJVVerse 3,458 of 31,102 · 11.1%

Study this verse

Summary

Leviticus 24:11 records a profoundly significant incident during Israel's wilderness sojourn, detailing the egregious act of a man who not only blasphemed the sacred name of the LORD but also cursed. This pivotal event, involving the son of an Israelitish woman and an Egyptian father, immediately prompted his apprehension and presentation before Moses, thereby underscoring the extreme gravity with which the nascent covenant community regarded offenses against God's holiness and the absolute necessity of divine arbitration in such matters. The verse serves as a crucial narrative bridge, setting the stage for the establishment of a severe and foundational legal precedent concerning blasphemy within Israel, highlighting the non-negotiable sanctity of God's divine name and character.

Context

Literary Context

This incident in Leviticus 24:11 is strategically placed immediately following the detailed instructions for the daily maintenance of the Tabernacle's holy lamps and the regular presentation of the showbread before the LORD, as outlined in Leviticus 24:1-9. This juxtaposition is highly significant; it emphasizes that while ritual purity and proper worship are vital, the foundational reverence for God's very name is paramount and undergirds all other aspects of communal and spiritual life. The sanctity of the sacred space and its rituals is intrinsically linked to the sanctity of the Divine Name. The narrative of the blasphemer, introduced in Leviticus 24:10, serves as a stark interruption, demonstrating that a direct affront to God's character through His name is an offense of the highest order, demanding immediate and decisive attention, even amidst the ongoing sacred duties. The subsequent verses in Leviticus 24:12-16 then detail the divine judgment and the specific law established as a direct result of this unprecedented act, highlighting the direct consequence of profaning God's sacred name.

Historical & Cultural Context

The incident occurs during Israel's formative period in the wilderness, a critical time when God was actively establishing His covenant with them, defining their identity as a holy nation, and instituting the laws that would govern their society. In the ancient Near East, a name was not merely a label but was understood to embody the very character, reputation, and authority of the person or deity it represented. To "blaspheme the name" of a god was therefore a direct assault on that deity's essence, power, and sovereignty. For Israel, the name YHWH (the LORD) was uniquely sacred, representing God's personal, covenantal presence and His absolute sovereignty. This act of blasphemy was a direct and egregious violation of the Third Commandment, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7; reiterated in Deuteronomy 5:11). The fact that the offender was the son of an Israelitish woman and an Egyptian man (Leviticus 24:10) highlights the impartiality and universality of God's law; once within the covenant community, all individuals, regardless of their lineage, were bound by its statutes. The immediate bringing of the offender to Moses underscores the recognition that this was an offense requiring divine, not merely human, judgment, setting a crucial precedent for the administration of justice in Israel.

Key Themes

This verse contributes significantly to several major theological and narrative themes within Leviticus and the broader Pentateuch. Primarily, it powerfully reinforces the theme of God's absolute holiness and the sanctity of His name, demonstrating that any affront to His character is an offense of the highest order, demanding severe consequences. It also highlights the theme of divine justice and legal precedent, as this incident serves as the catalyst for the establishment of a specific law regarding blasphemy, emphasizing that God's laws are applied impartially within the covenant community. Furthermore, it touches upon the theme of communal responsibility for holiness, as the people immediately recognized the gravity of the sin and brought the offender to Moses, indicating their understanding that such an act defiled the entire camp and required divine intervention to restore purity. This event underscores the delicate balance between ritual purity, as seen in the preceding verses concerning the Tabernacle, and the ethical demands of revering God's name, both essential for maintaining a holy relationship with God.

Exposition and Analysis

Key Word Analysis

Blasphemed nâqab' H5344

The Hebrew verb נָקַב (nâqab) literally means "to puncture," "to perforate," or "to specify/designate." In this context, it signifies a deliberate, pointed, and explicit verbal assault or piercing insult directed against the sacred name of the LORD. It implies a conscious act of profanation, a direct and intentional "piercing" of the divine honor and character, rather than a casual or unintentional misuse. This is not merely speaking ill of God, but specifically and intentionally using His sacred name in a way that dishonors or defiles it, often in the context of a curse or defiance, thereby striking through His reputation.

Cursed qâlal' H7043

The verb קָלַל (qâlal) means "to be light," "to be trifling," or "to treat with contempt," and in its Piel stem, "to curse." When paired with "blasphemed," it intensifies the nature of the offense, indicating not just a verbal abuse but a profound act of contempt and disdain for God. To "curse" God implies wishing evil upon Him or treating Him as insignificant, thereby attempting to diminish His glory and authority. This word underscores the active, aggressive, and contemptuous nature of the verbal assault, seeking to make God "light" or worthless in the eyes of others.

Name shêm' H8034

The Hebrew word שֵׁם (shêm) refers to an appellation, a mark or memorial of individuality. In ancient thought, a name was inextricably linked to the essence, character, honor, and authority of the one named. To blaspheme or curse the "Name of the LORD" (YHWH) was therefore not merely an offense against a word, but a direct affront to God's very being, His holiness, His power, and His covenant relationship with Israel. It was an attack on His divine reputation and sovereignty, considered the ultimate act of rebellion against the Most High, as His name embodies His manifest presence and character.

Verse Breakdown

"And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name [of the LORD], and cursed."

This opening clause precisely identifies the perpetrator and the dual nature of his heinous offense. The preceding verse (Leviticus 24:10) established his mixed heritage, subtly highlighting the universality of God's law within the covenant community. The act itself is described as a direct, deliberate, and public verbal assault on the divine character, involving both a specific profanation of God's sacred name and a general act of cursing, demonstrating profound contempt and defiance. This was a direct violation of the Third Commandment, striking at the very core of God's identity.

"And they brought him unto Moses:"

This indicates the immediate and decisive reaction of the community. The people recognized the extreme gravity of the offense, understanding that such a profound violation of divine holiness could not be dealt with by ordinary means or human judgment alone. Bringing the offender to Moses, God's appointed mediator, signifies their immediate appeal to divine authority for arbitration and judgment, acknowledging the unprecedented nature of the sin and the urgent need for a divinely revealed verdict to maintain the purity of the camp.

"(and his mother's name [was] Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:)"

This parenthetical detail provides specific genealogical information about the offender's mother. While seemingly incidental, it serves several important functions: it grounds the narrative in historical reality, providing precise details for a significant legal precedent; it emphasizes the human element within the broader divine judgment, showing that this was a real person from a known family; and it potentially underscores the impartiality of God's law, as this individual, despite his mixed parentage, was fully accountable within the Israelite community. The mention of the tribe of Dan further solidifies the factual basis of the account and reinforces the idea that this incident involved a known individual within the Israelite community, making the subsequent judgment a clear and public example for all.

Literary Devices

The passage employs several potent literary devices to underscore the gravity of the event and its implications. Juxtaposition is powerfully evident in the placement of this narrative immediately after detailed instructions for Tabernacle rituals. This abrupt shift from sacred service to a profane act powerfully highlights that reverence for God's name is not merely one law among many, but the foundational principle upon which all worship and communal life rest, demonstrating that external rituals are meaningless without internal reverence. The detailed genealogical note regarding the mother's name and tribe serves as a form of Verisimilitude, lending an air of historical authenticity and specificity to the account, emphasizing that this was a real event with real consequences for a known individual, not a mere parable. Furthermore, the immediate action of "bringing him unto Moses" functions as Foreshadowing, signaling that this offense is of such magnitude that it will require direct divine intervention and will lead to the establishment of a significant, perhaps capital, legal precedent, which is indeed revealed in the subsequent verses of Leviticus 24.

Theological and Thematic Connections

Leviticus 24:11 profoundly establishes the non-negotiable sanctity of God's name, revealing that it embodies His very character, authority, and presence. To blaspheme or curse this name is the ultimate act of defiance against the divine, a direct assault on God's holiness and sovereignty. This incident underscores the absolute seriousness with which God regards irreverence, demonstrating that maintaining the purity of His name is foundational to the covenant relationship and the moral order of Israel. It also highlights the impartiality of divine justice, as the law applies equally to all within the community, regardless of background, and emphasizes the necessity of divine revelation for judgments concerning matters of ultimate holiness and sin, particularly when no prior legal precedent exists. The incident serves as a stark reminder that God's name is not to be trifled with, but is to be held in utmost reverence and awe.

Reflection and Application

While the specific judicial penalties of ancient Israel are not directly applied in contemporary society, the timeless principles embedded in Leviticus 24:11 remain profoundly relevant for believers today. This passage calls us to cultivate a deep and abiding reverence for the name of God, recognizing that His name encapsulates His glorious character, infinite power, and covenant faithfulness. Our speech, thoughts, and actions should consistently reflect this awe and respect. This means not only refraining from explicit cursing or blasphemy, but also avoiding the casual, flippant, or vain use of God's name in everyday conversation, ensuring our words always reflect His majesty. It challenges us to consider whether our lives truly honor the One whose name we bear as Christians, ensuring that our words are seasoned with grace and our conduct brings glory to Him. We are called to uphold the sanctity of God's name by living in a manner worthy of His calling, demonstrating His holiness to a watching world, and consciously seeking to hallow His name in all we do.

Questions for Reflection

  1. In what ways might we, perhaps unintentionally, "take the name of the LORD in vain" in our modern context, beyond explicit cursing?
  2. How does our daily speech, including our casual expressions and online interactions, reflect our reverence for God's character and authority?
  3. What practical steps can we take to cultivate a deeper sense of awe and respect for God's holy name in our personal lives and within our communities?
  4. How does the impartiality of God's law, as seen in this passage where lineage did not exempt the offender, inform our understanding of justice and accountability today, both for ourselves and for others?

FAQ

Why is the mother's name and tribe specifically mentioned in this verse?

The specific mention of Shelomith, daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan, serves several important purposes. First, it grounds the narrative in historical reality, providing concrete details for what became a foundational legal precedent in Israel. This specificity lends credibility and weight to the ensuing divine judgment. Second, it highlights the impartiality of God's law; despite the individual's mixed heritage (Israelitish mother, Egyptian father, as noted in Leviticus 24:10), he was subject to the same divine laws as any full-blooded Israelite once he was part of the community. This detail underscores that covenant membership, not ancestry, determined legal accountability. Finally, it provides a clear and precise record for future generations, emphasizing the seriousness and specificity of the incident that led to the establishment of the capital punishment for blasphemy, making it a memorable and undeniable case study.

What exactly does "blasphemed the name [of the LORD]" entail, beyond just cursing?

The Hebrew verb for "blasphemed" (naqav) suggests a deliberate, intentional act of profanation, a "piercing" or "designating" of God's name in a way that profoundly dishonors it. It goes far beyond a casual or thoughtless misuse of God's name. It implies a direct, willful, and public assault on God's character, authority, and holiness, often in the context of a curse or defiance. When combined with "cursed" (qalal), it signifies a profound act of contempt and disdain, actively seeking to diminish God's glory or wishing evil upon Him. This was considered an ultimate act of rebellion against the divine essence, an attack on the very reputation and sovereignty of YHWH, demonstrating a complete lack of reverence and an active desire to defile what is sacred.

How does this incident relate to the Third Commandment, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7)?

This incident is a direct and extreme violation of the Third Commandment. While "taking the name in vain" can encompass various forms of irreverence, including casual or insincere oaths, using God's name lightly, or misrepresenting His character, the act of blaspheming and cursing God's name, as seen in Leviticus 24:11, represents the most egregious and defiant manifestation of this prohibition. It demonstrates the ultimate contempt for God's holiness and His covenant relationship with Israel, a direct assault on His divine being. The severe penalty prescribed in Leviticus 24:16 for this act underscores the absolute seriousness with which God views the sanctity of His name, reinforcing the weight and importance of the Third Commandment for the entire community and for all generations.

Christ-Centered Fulfillment

The profound sanctity of God's name, so rigorously upheld in Leviticus 24:11 and the subsequent judgment, finds its ultimate fulfillment and deepest meaning in Jesus Christ. He is the very embodiment of God's name and character, the "radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being" (Hebrews 1:3). While the Old Testament law prescribed death for blasphemy against YHWH, the New Testament reveals the ultimate blasphemy to be the rejection of God's Son, who perfectly revealed the Father's name to humanity (John 17:6). Ironically, Jesus Himself was accused of blasphemy by those who failed to recognize His divine identity, claiming to be God's Son (Matthew 26:65), yet it was through His sacrificial death that the Father's name was ultimately glorified and vindicated, demonstrating the depth of divine love and justice. In the New Covenant, the focus shifts from external legal penalties to an internalized reverence for God's name, made possible by the indwelling Holy Spirit, who enables believers to truly hallow God's name. We are now called to honor God's name not merely by avoiding explicit curses, but by living lives that reflect His holiness, by proclaiming the name of Jesus, "the name that is above every name" (Philippians 2:9), and by recognizing that "there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Thus, the ancient law's demand for reverence for God's name is fulfilled in Christ, who not only perfectly honored the Father's name but also made it possible for us to genuinely hallow it through faith in Him, becoming children who bear His glorious name.

Copy as

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.

1662–1714 · 14 verses
Passage under commentLeviticus 24:10–23
I. II. Main points1. 2. Sub-points

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!

Copy as
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as

Continue studying Leviticus 24:11 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.

Related study articles8