Leviticus Chapter 24
The Law Put into Action
A. Care for the Tabernacle
1. (Leviticus 24:1–4) Care of the Tabernacle Lamps
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: “Command the children of Israel that they bring to you pure oil of pressed olives for the light, to make the lamps burn continually. Outside the veil of the Testimony, in the tabernacle of meeting, Aaron shall be in charge of it from evening until morning before the LORD continually; it shall be a statute forever in your generations. He shall be in charge of the lamps on the pure gold lampstand before the LORD continually.”
The LORD commanded that the people bring pure oil of pressed olives for the light so that the lamps in the tabernacle might burn continually. These lamps, set upon the solid gold lampstand described in Exodus 25:31–40, provided the only source of light within the sanctuary. Because of this, constant care was required. The wicks needed to be trimmed, and the oil replenished, to ensure that the light never ceased. This symbolized the continual presence and illumination of God among His people.
The phrase outside the veil of the Testimony refers to the location of the lampstand in relation to the Ark of the Covenant. The word “testimony” was a technical term for the Ten Commandments housed within the Ark, as seen in Exodus 25:16, Exodus 40:20, Deuteronomy 10:2, and 1 Kings 8:9. Thus, the lampstand was placed outside the veil that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.
When the LORD instructed that Aaron “shall be in charge of it,” the phrase carried the sense of constant tending and maintenance. Various translations render it as “keep them burning,” “tend the lamps,” or “keep in trim.” The idea was active, deliberate care to ensure the lamps were burning at their proper times. This daily service highlighted the priest’s continual ministry before the presence of God.
The golden lampstand itself became an enduring emblem of Israel. The menorah symbolized the light and presence of God shining through His covenant people. When the Romans conquered Jerusalem in A.D. 70 under Titus, the menorah from the temple was carried away as spoil, later depicted on the Arch of Titus in Rome. Even today, it remains a symbol of Israel’s identity and divine calling.
The command that the lamps burn continually from evening until morning before the LORD shows that God desired His dwelling never to be darkened. The light symbolized His holiness, His truth, and His ever-present nature. Spiritually, it foreshadowed the coming of Jesus Christ, who declared, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (John 8:12). The perpetual flame testified that just as the lamp in the sanctuary was never to go out, so Christ continually shines as the eternal light of the world.
Furthermore, believers are also called to reflect that divine light. Jesus said, “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden” (Matthew 5:14). As the menorah stood before the veil radiating light into the tabernacle, so Christians are to shine in a dark world, maintained by the continual supply of the Spirit of God. The imagery suggests diligence and faithfulness—our spiritual lamps are to be kept trimmed and filled, just as the tabernacle lamps were. As one commentator beautifully expressed it, “As the candle in the hand of the housewife who sweeps her house diligently, as a lamp in the hand of the virgin expecting the bridegroom, or as a lighthouse on a rocky coast,” so must the believer’s life shine continually before God.
2. (Leviticus 24:5–9) Care of the Tabernacle Bread
“And you shall take fine flour and bake twelve cakes with it. Two-tenths of an ephah shall be in each cake. You shall set them in two rows, six in a row, on the pure gold table before the LORD. And you shall put pure frankincense on each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, an offering made by fire to the LORD. Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by 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 to him from the offerings of the LORD made by fire, by a perpetual statute.”
The LORD commanded Moses to prepare twelve cakes of fine flour, representing the twelve tribes of Israel, and to arrange them in two orderly rows upon the pure gold table before the LORD. This table, described in Exodus 25:23–30, stood directly opposite the golden lampstand within the Holy Place (Exodus 26:35). Each cake contained two-tenths of an ephah of flour, symbolizing completeness and divine provision for all of God’s people.
The term “two rows” can also be translated as “arrangements” or “piles,” implying that the bread was laid out in an organized and reverent manner. This bread was called the “showbread,” literally “bread of the face,” as seen in Exodus 25:30. It was bread that dwelt before the face or presence of God, signifying continual fellowship between the LORD and His covenant people. In the ancient world, eating bread together symbolized friendship and communion, and thus, this table represented Israel’s constant fellowship with their God.
The instruction to set the bread “in order before the LORD continually” illustrates two vital truths about God’s desired relationship with His people. First, He desires a proper and ordered relationship—worship and service conducted with reverence and precision, not chaos. Second, He desires a continual relationship—an unbroken fellowship maintained through covenant faithfulness. This continual presentation of bread was a visual sermon of God’s unceasing care and the believer’s duty to remain in constant communion with Him.
Ultimately, this ordinance pointed to Jesus Christ, who declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35), and again, “I am the bread of life” (John 6:48). The showbread foreshadowed Christ’s perfect and continual provision for the spiritual nourishment of His people.
The bread also included “pure frankincense on each row,” symbolizing the fragrance of worship and prayer accompanying fellowship with God. This element was a memorial portion, an offering by fire, pleasing to the LORD. Just as the bread sustained physical priests, the life of Christ sustains believers spiritually.
Finally, Aaron and his sons were commanded to eat this bread in a holy place, showing that it was not a mere display item but a source of blessing to those who served before God. The bread was to be replaced every Sabbath, meaning that the fellowship it represented was always fresh. God did not desire stale communion with His people but a living, renewed relationship each week. Likewise, believers are called to daily renewal in their fellowship with Christ, feeding upon His Word and walking in the light of His presence.
B. The Case of the Egyptian Blasphemer
1. (Leviticus 24:10–12) The Crime of the Egyptian Blasphemer
Now the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and this Israelite woman’s son and a man of Israel fought each other in the camp. And the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the name of the LORD and cursed; and so they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.) Then they put him in custody, that the mind of the LORD might be shown to them.
The narrative shifts from ceremonial instruction to an incident illustrating the seriousness of blasphemy under the law. The offender was the son of an Israelite woman named Shelomith and an Egyptian father, indicating a mixed heritage. This man, a product of the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with Israel as recorded in Exodus 12:38, was neither fully assimilated into the covenant community nor entirely outside it. This background likely contributed to his conflict and ultimate rebellion.
The text records that the man “went out among the children of Israel,” meaning he dwelt and interacted with the covenant people but was not one of them by full descent. His dual heritage symbolizes divided loyalties—between the world (Egypt) and the people of God (Israel). Such divided identity often produces internal conflict and outward transgression, as seen here when he fought with a man of Israel in the camp.
According to Jewish tradition, preserved in later rabbinic writings, this blasphemer was said to be the son of the Egyptian whom Moses had slain in Exodus 2:11–12. They assert that he attempted to pitch his tent among the tribe of Dan, claiming descent through his mother, but was rejected as not a true Israelite. This alleged rejection, they say, provoked his anger and led him to blaspheme the name of the LORD. Though this account is not found in Scripture, it reflects the ancient understanding that his sin was rooted in bitterness, pride, and rebellion against divine order.
The key offense described is that the man “blasphemed the name of the LORD and cursed.” This is more than profanity or careless speech—it was a deliberate verbal assault upon the divine name. The command against such sin had already been given: “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people” (Exodus 22:28). In the ancient Near East, a name represented one’s character, essence, and authority. To blaspheme the name of God was to reject His sovereignty and holiness entirely. As Harrison notes, in the ancient context “blasphemy was in effect an act of repudiation.” This was not merely emotional outburst; it was a declaration of defiance against the LORD Himself.
Egyptian culture, from which this man’s father came, was accustomed to a multitude of gods and the casual use of their names in curses or oaths. The man’s sin likely arose from this pagan influence, treating the holy name of Yahweh with the same irreverence Egyptians had for their idols. In doing so, he demonstrated that he did not regard the God of Israel as unique or supreme.
After this act, the people brought him to Moses, and he was placed in custody until “the mind of the LORD might be shown to them.” This shows that Israel respected due process. They did not rush to punishment or act in mob justice. The matter was brought to divine authority for judgment. Because the offender was of mixed heritage, there was uncertainty whether the full weight of the law applied to him. The Law of Moses commanded compassion and fairness toward foreigners—“Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9). Therefore, they waited upon divine instruction to determine whether the law against blasphemy extended to a foreigner residing among them. This act of restraint demonstrated wisdom and reverence for God’s justice.
2. (Leviticus 24:13–14) The Penalty upon the Egyptian Blasphemer
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Take outside the camp him who has cursed; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.”
The LORD responded decisively, commanding that the offender be taken “outside the camp.” This signified separation from the covenant community. The camp was the dwelling of God among His people, and to be cast outside was to be placed beyond divine fellowship and protection. This exile symbolized spiritual death before the physical execution took place.
Before the execution, those who heard the blasphemy were to lay their hands upon his head. This act followed the principle later articulated in Deuteronomy 17:6–7: “Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people.” The witnesses who heard the offense had to affirm publicly that the accusation was true and that they were willing to take part in carrying out the sentence. This ensured that the charge was not based on rumor or deceit and that the witnesses themselves bore moral responsibility for their testimony.
This principle is further reinforced in Deuteronomy 19:16–19, which prescribes that a false witness should suffer the same penalty he sought to inflict upon the accused. Thus, the laying of hands upon the blasphemer’s head symbolized both the transfer of guilt and the assurance of verified testimony. Matthew Poole explains that “by laying their hands upon his head they gave public testimony that they heard this person speak such words, and did in their own and in all the people’s names desire and demand justice to be executed upon him.”
Following this confirmation, God commanded that “all the congregation stone him.” Stoning was the appointed method of execution because it allowed the entire community to participate in upholding God’s holiness and justice. Stones were readily available and required no special weapon, ensuring that every adult member of Israel shared in the responsibility of purging evil from their midst. The act of communal execution reinforced the gravity of blasphemy—not only as an offense against God but also as a contamination of the covenant community. By participating, the congregation declared their unity in upholding God’s holiness.
This divine judgment also clarified the earlier legal uncertainty. The LORD’s command demonstrated that His law applied equally to all within the covenant community—whether native-born Israelite or foreigner. As G. Campbell Morgan noted, “It was a principle of justice and of mercy. Its first emphasis is upon the fact that those who enter the Kingdom of God, and enjoy its privileges, must be governed by its laws. To enter that Kingdom is to renounce all other lordships, and to accept its laws.” Thus, inclusion among God’s people carried with it accountability to His standards. The holiness of the divine name could not be compromised, and reverence toward the LORD was a non-negotiable condition for dwelling among His people.
3. (Leviticus 24:15–16) The Principle for Israel to Learn from the Death of the Blasphemer
“Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death.’”
The LORD now revealed to Moses the broader principle that was to govern Israel regarding the sanctity of His name. This was not merely a judgment against one man, but an ordinance establishing that whoever curses or blasphemes God bears the guilt and consequence of that sin. The words “shall bear his sin” express personal responsibility before God. The offender cannot claim ignorance, heritage, or nationality as an excuse. When one curses God, that sin remains upon them, and they are answerable before the divine Judge.
To “curse his God” was to speak evil of Him, to renounce His authority, or to treat His name with contempt. The phrase “shall bear his sin” emphasizes that divine justice does not overlook verbal rebellion against God’s holiness. The offender must carry the full weight of the guilt they have incurred. This reflects the principle later affirmed in Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
When the LORD added, “Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death,” He reinforced that blasphemy was not a trivial offense. It was a deliberate act of defiance against the holiness of God, equivalent to repudiating His covenant and authority. The example of the Egyptian blasphemer demonstrated the gravity of this transgression. The divine name represented the very character, nature, and power of God. To blaspheme His name was to assault His person.
Adam Clarke explained the concept of blasphemy in the New Testament, particularly in Matthew 9:3, where it is written, “And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, ‘This Man blasphemes!’” Clarke observed: “Whenever it is used in reference to God, it simply signifies to speak impiously of His nature, or attributes, or works.” Thus, to blaspheme is to speak falsely or irreverently concerning who God is or what He has done. To speak against the LORD’s nature or misrepresent His character is to desecrate His holiness.
The LORD also commanded that “all the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land.” This clarified that His moral and judicial law was universal within Israel’s camp. The divine name was to be revered by all who dwelt among God’s people—native Israelite and foreigner alike. The holiness of the LORD demanded uniform reverence. As Rooker noted, “If God required a foreigner to be executed for this offense, He would certainly not tolerate its violation among the Israelites, who were His people and hence were identified with His name.” The privilege of dwelling among God’s covenant people came with the obligation to honor Him as holy.
Because of the gravity of this command, later generations of Israel developed a profound reverence for the divine name. To ensure they never violated this law, Jewish tradition developed meticulous safeguards. Many refused even to utter or write the name of God (YHWH), substituting instead “Adonai” (meaning “Lord”) or referring to God indirectly as “the Name.” Some even wrote “G-d” instead of “God,” fearing that destroying a written page containing the divine name might constitute blasphemy.
By some historical accounts, only the High Priest was permitted to pronounce the sacred name of God (Yahweh), and even then, only once a year on the Day of Atonement within the Holy of Holies. The pronunciation was considered so holy that it was passed down from one high priest to another at the moment of death. Over the centuries, the exact pronunciation of the divine name became lost. The four consonants YHWH, known as the Tetragrammaton, were later mispronounced as “Jehovah” instead of the more accurate rendering “Yahweh.” Writing in 1830, Adam Clarke remarked, “The Jews never pronounce this name, and so long has it been disused among them that the true pronunciation is now totally lost.” Such reverence, while well-intentioned, grew into rigid legalism, but it arose from a genuine desire to avoid even the possibility of blaspheming God’s sacred name.
This law serves as a timeless reminder that God’s name is not to be used lightly or irreverently. The third commandment echoes this truth: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7). The name of the LORD represents His presence, His authority, and His covenant faithfulness. To dishonor that name is to dishonor God Himself.
4. (Leviticus 24:17–18) The Punishment for Murder and Unlawful Killing of Animals
“Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, animal for animal.”
Having reaffirmed the penalty for blasphemy, the LORD now reiterated the broader principle of justice within Israel. The divine command clearly establishes proportional retribution—punishment equal to the crime. “Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death.” This reflects the moral foundation of Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.” Human life is sacred because it bears the image of God. Murder, therefore, is an assault not only against an individual but against the divine image itself. This verse reinforces the sanctity of life and the seriousness of unjustly taking it.
By contrast, “Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, animal for animal.” When an animal belonging to another was killed, the offender was required to make restitution, either by replacing the animal or by monetary payment. This command recognized that animals have value and that wrongful harm required accountability. Yet, the punishment was not equal to that for murder. This distinction underscores the biblical view of the created order—human life is of greater worth than animal life because humanity alone bears God’s image.
This principle of proportional justice guarded against both cruelty and excess. It prevented vengeance from exceeding the offense, ensuring that judgment remained just and measured. God’s law did not permit taking a human life for the loss of an animal, nor did it allow the destruction of property without compensation. Each crime was to be addressed according to its moral and social weight. Thus, the law upheld both divine justice and the dignity of creation while making clear that only human life bears eternal significance before God.
5. (Leviticus 24:19–22) The Right Measure of Judgment
“If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him; fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him. And whoever kills an animal shall restore it; but whoever kills a man shall be put to death. You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the LORD your God.”
God here established a principle of measured and proportionate justice within Israel’s theocratic law. The command, “As he has done, so shall it be done to him,” embodies the doctrine of lex talionis—the law of retaliation. This law was not intended as a license for vengeance, but as a guideline for judicial fairness. It ensured that punishment matched the crime and prevented excessive retribution. Justice under God was to be neither harsh nor lenient, but equal and measured.
The principle of “fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth” has often been misunderstood throughout history. It was never designed as a command for private revenge but as a judicial restraint to maintain order and equity. In the ancient world, it was common for vengeance to far exceed the original offense, escalating conflicts and perpetuating violence. God’s law restrained such excesses by limiting punishment to an exact equivalence of the crime. As Rooker notes, the intent was “so no man or judge would set judgment merely as they pleased.”
It is important to understand that the Mosaic application of this principle was not always literal. In cases of bodily harm, the law provided for compensation rather than physical mutilation. Exodus 21:26–27 provides an example: “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.” Thus, instead of literal retribution, the law demanded restitution equivalent to the damage caused. The value of the injury was assessed, and the guilty party compensated the victim accordingly. The principle was moral and judicial, not barbaric.
This law reflected divine wisdom, acknowledging human tendencies toward both extremes—excessive severity and undue leniency. God required that every crime be punished but also placed firm boundaries upon punishment. His justice was not to be determined by emotion or personal vendetta, but by His own righteous standard.
Later, in Deuteronomy 19:21, the LORD reaffirmed this same principle, “Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” It expressed moral balance—the equal value of harm done and recompense given. This upheld the sanctity of both human life and justice within the covenant community.
However, Jesus Christ later clarified that this principle was meant for civil law and judicial order, not for personal relationships. In Matthew 5:38–42, He taught, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Christ condemned the misuse of this civil statute for personal vengeance, calling His followers to rise above retaliation with mercy, forgiveness, and love. In God’s Kingdom, personal relationships are to be governed not by strict reciprocity but by grace.
The closing command of this passage, “You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country,” reinforces the impartial nature of divine justice. Whether native-born or foreigner, all within Israel’s community were to be judged by the same righteous standard. God’s justice is never tribal or preferential. The LORD declared, “For I am the LORD your God,” grounding this principle in His own character. His holiness demanded equity; His sovereignty ensured that all would be accountable before Him without partiality.
Thus, this section teaches that divine justice is not revenge but righteous proportion, applied equally to all. The moral weight of the law rested upon the foundation of God’s holiness and impartiality, establishing Israel as a people governed by justice rather than passion.
6. (Leviticus 24:23) The Execution of the Egyptian Blasphemer
“Then Moses spoke to the children of Israel; and they took outside the camp him who had cursed, and stoned him with stones. So the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.”
This verse records the solemn execution of God’s command concerning the Egyptian blasphemer. Moses faithfully delivered the LORD’s decree, and Israel carried it out without delay. The narrative does not describe Moses’ emotions or personal feelings regarding the judgment. His duty was not to question but to communicate and enforce the divine will. As a mediator of the covenant, Moses stood as the voice of God to the nation, ensuring obedience to the revealed law regardless of human sentiment.
The execution took place “outside the camp,” signifying both exclusion from the covenant community and separation from the presence of God. Under the Mosaic system, what was unclean, defiled, or under divine curse could not remain within the sacred assembly. The man’s sin had rendered him spiritually unclean, and thus he was expelled from among the people before being put to death. This physical removal reflected the moral and spiritual reality of separation from God’s holiness due to sin.
The people “stoned him with stones,” fulfilling the prescribed method of execution. Stoning was communal, meaning the entire congregation participated. This was not an act of mob violence but of corporate obedience to divine justice. It demonstrated that sin against God’s holiness affected the entire nation and that the preservation of purity among God’s people required collective accountability. The nation stood together in affirming that God’s name must be revered and that rebellion against His authority could not be tolerated.
Adam Clarke, citing Jewish traditions, described the detailed procedure of stoning: the condemned person was brought without the camp because his crime made him unclean. Upon arriving near the execution site, he was stripped of his garments except for a loincloth. The witnesses, who had first testified against him, ascended an elevated platform with the accused. They laid their hands upon his head to signify that his guilt rested upon him alone. One of the witnesses struck him first with a stone upon the loins. If he did not die from that blow, a large stone—so heavy that two men could lift it—was cast upon his chest to complete the execution. This process, while severe, emphasized due process, verified testimony, and communal participation in carrying out justice.
The verse concludes with the solemn statement: “So the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.” This demonstrates the people’s obedience to divine authority. God’s law was not given as theoretical instruction or moral suggestion; it was meant to be obeyed fully. Even when obedience was difficult and emotionally weighty, faithfulness to the LORD required submission to His commands. In this act, Israel upheld the sanctity of God’s name, the integrity of His law, and the seriousness of sin within His covenant community.
