_THE HOLY LIGHT AND THE SHEW-BREAD: THE BLASPHEMER'S END._
LEV. xxiv. 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 chap. xxiii., on the set times of holy
convocation, and chap. xxv., 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.
xxiv. 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 for ever throughout your generations. He shall order the
lamps upon the pure candlestick before the Lord continually."
First (vv. 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
Exod. xxv. 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 Zech.
iv. 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
(Matt. v. 14, 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 (i. 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 (ver. 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."
xxiv. 5-9.
"And thou shall 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," _sc._ 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 (ver. 7) "pure frankincense,"--doubtless, as tradition
says, placed in the golden spoons, or little cups (Exod. xxxvii. 16).
Every sabbath (vv. 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"
(ver. 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.[43] 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.
[43] See Kurtz, "Der Alttestamentliche Opfercultus," p. 271.
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 chap.
ii., 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 symbolical
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 Bähr,[44] 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.
[44] "Symbolik des Mosäischen Cultus," erster Band, pp. 428-432.
THE PENALTY OF BLASPHEMY.
xxiv. 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 homeborn, 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 neighbour; 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 as 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
ver. 16, is of special and curious 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 _Adonáy_, "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
Yáhveh); 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.[45] 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.
[45] See, _e.g._, Rabbi Dr. J. Levy, "Chaldäisches Wörterbuch,"
zweiter Band, pp. 301, 302; and compare Numb. xxiii. 8, Prov.
xi. 26, xxiv. 24, where the same Hebrew word is used.
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.[46]
Horrified at the man's wickedness, "they brought him unto Moses;" and
"they put him in ward" (ver. 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 (ver. 15), "Whosoever curseth
his God shall bear his sin," _i.e._, he shall be held subject to
punishment; and (ver. 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."
[46] _Cf._ the expression used with reference to Jesus Christ,
Phil. ii. 9 (R.V.), "the name which is above every name."
Then follows (vv. 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 (Exod. xxi. 12,
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 (ver. 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 (Matt. v.
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 (Numb. xxxv. 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 (John xviii. 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. xiii. 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 (ver. 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
(ver. 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
any one 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.