Leviticus 24

My Notes Authors Matthew Henry - Commentary on the Whole Bible Care is here taken, and orders are given, for the decent furnishing of the candlestick and table in God’s house. I. The lamps must always be kept burning. The law for this we had before, Exod. xxvii. 20, 21. It is here repeated, probably because it now began to be put in execution, when other things were settled. 1. The people were to provide oil (v. 2), and this, as every thing else that was to be used in God’s service, must be of the best, pure olive-oil, beaten, probably it was double-strained. This was to cause the lamps to burn; all our English copies read it lamps, but in the original it is singular in v. 2—to cause the lamp to burn; but plural in v. 4—he shall order the lamps. The seven lamps made all one lamp, in allusion to which the blessed Spirit of grace is represented by seven lamps of fire before the throne (Rev. iv. 5), for there are _diversities of gifts, but one Spirit, _1 Cor. xii. 4. Ministers are as burning and shining lights in Christ’s church, but it is the duty of people to provide comfortably for them, as Israel for the lamps. Scandalous maintenance makes a scandalous ministry. 2. The priests were to tend the lamps; they must snuff them, clean the candlestick, and supply them with oil, morning and evening, v. 3, 4. Thus it is the work of the ministers of the gospel to hold forth that word of life, not to set up new lights, but, by expounding and preaching the word, to make the light of it more clear and extensive. This was the ordinary way of keeping the lamps burning; but, when the church was poor and in distress, we find its lamps fed constantly with oil from the good olives immediately, without the ministry of priest or people (Zech. iv. 2, 3); for, though God has tied us to means, he has not tied himself to them, but will take effectual care that his lamp never go out in the world for want of oil.

My Notes Authors

My Notes Authors

My Notes Authors John Calvin - Commentaries **And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Hence it now more clearly appears that the object of the Third Commandment was that God’s holy name should be honored with the respect and veneration which it deserves, since the insult whereby it is violated is condemned to capital punishment. By the expression “cursing,” Moses designates all profane and impure words which tend to brand it with dishonor; as if any one should accuse God either of injustice or cruelty; or should assail Him with blasphemies; or designedly detract from His glory either in anger or wantonness, since many, when exasperated, launch forth horrible blasphemies, whilst others make a parade of their audacity by scoffing at Him. The second verb, which is twice repeated in the next verse, נקב, nakab, 328328 Here C. again gives an opinion as to the best way of rendering נקב in this passage, for which he is not indebted to S.M.; and modern lexicographers have given their sanction to _C.’s _view. — W means in Hebrew to hollow out or perforate, and metaphorically to unfold, thus the Latins say that what is thoroughly brought out is “enucleated.” The source of the metaphor as applied to contumely is not very dissimilar. The translation “he who shall have expressed,” which some give, is lame; to me the word “transfix” seems to be very suitable in the present passage, nor are the Latin phrases _proscindere _or _lacerate _very different. As to the meaning there is tolerable agreement, _i.e., _that God would not have His holy name disrespectfully traduced; and assuredly it is insupportably impious when the tongue of mortal man, which was created to celebrate the praises of God, is employed in insulting Him. The kind of death is also appointed, when He commands the offender to be stoned by the whole people, so that all may learn from the sight that such a monster should be annihilated as contaminating the earth. God also would prove the zeal of His people, by calling them all forth in defense of His glory, and arming them for vengeance. Moreover, He did not subject to this punishment the Jews only, who professed to be His worshippers, but also strangers who were dwelling in the land in the exercise of their business; viz., that they might more severely punish the crime in His own servants who were less excusable.

My Notes Authors

My Notes Authors John Calvin - Commentaries **_And __he __that __killeth __any _man. We now proceed to the confirmation of the Sixth Commandment afforded by the Judicial Law; and first, the punishment of death is awarded to murderers. To “smite the life” 2626 See margin of A. V. is equivalent to wounding mortally, so that death ensues, as Moses more clearly explains himself in Exodus. But although he speaks briefly, like a legislator, there is no doubt but that he would have those whom he adjudges to die put to death by the sentence of the judges; the manner of executing the punishment we shall see in its proper place. Now although God did not carry out to absolute perfection the laws which He enacted, yet in their principle He desired that a clear and unreserved approval of His Commandments should appear. And this was the reason why I commenced with this passage, because it directly corresponds with the Sixth Commandment. 2727 Lat., “quia praecepto respondet quasi ἀντίςροφος.”

My Notes Authors

My Notes Authors John Calvin - Commentaries **_And __if __man __cause __a __blemish __in __his _neighbor, he now also subjects to punishment those who shall have mutilated the body of their neighbor by blows; and this was necessary, because otherwise every very great villain, who might be accomplished in the art of inflicting injury, would have broken his brother’s leg or arm, and then would not only have laughed at the poor man himself, but also at God and His Law. If, therefore, a person had injured a member of another, the law of retaliation is enacted, which has also been in use among other nations. 2828 This is the earliest account we have of the _Lex _Talionis, or law of _like __for _like, which afterwards prevailed among the Greeks and Romans. Among the latter it constituted a part of the Twelve Tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the Praetor. It prevails less or more in most civilized countries, and is fully acted upon in the Canon Law in reference to all calumniators: “Clumniator, si in accusatione defecerit, talionem recipiat.” Nothing, however, of this kind was left to private revenge; the magistrate awarded the punishment when the fact was proved. Otherwise the _Lex _Talionis would have utterly destroyed the peace of society, and have sowed the seeds of hatred, revenge, and all uncharitableness.” — _Adam _Clarke on Exodus 21:24 . The enactment of the Twelve Tables to this effect appears from Festus to have been the following: “Si merebrum rupsit, (ruperit,) ni cum eo pacit, (paciscetur,) talio est;” presenting a singular coincidence with the Mosaic provision. See Aul. Gell., lib. 20 c. 1, where the words are given somewhat differently, as in C.’s text. The objection of Favorinus is that it was impossible to be kept; for if the like were inflicted for the like, as one wound for another, they must take care that the like wound in every respect should be made, neither longer nor deeper; if it were, then a new retaliation must arise, and so _ad _infinitum. But God thus distinctly prescribes when and how the injury was to be retaliated, that the law might not be open at all to the foolish cavils with which Favorinus attacks the law of the Twelve Tables in Gellius. And certainly the words of the Decemvirs were too obscure, “_Si __membrum __fregeris _meum, _ex __pacto __talio _est.” (If you have broken my limb; without agreement made, there must be retaliation.) But God does not command an eye to be plucked out for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth, till He has set forth that this was only to be the case if any one had knowingly and willfully inflicted the injury; thus, He does not bring to justice accidental blows, but only a premeditated crime. It is vain to object that the members of different persons can hardly be broken with exact. equality, for the intention of God was none other than that, being alarmed by the severity of the punishment, men should abstain from injuring others; and therefore these two things were connected together, If one killeth a man, let him die, and if one hath taken away a part of life, let him suffer a similar privation. And the same is the tendency of the distinction, that the loss of an animal may be repaid, but that if a man be killed, there could be no just compensation made by money.

My Notes Authors

My Notes Authors