← Back to sermon library

Well, you can turn in your Bibles 
to Leviticus chapter 24 as we return to our studies in the 
book of Leviticus. Remember that from chapter 17 
onward, it's what's been called the holiness code. So up to chapter 
16, you basically have emphases on corporate worship. You have 
legislation with reference to sacrifice, what the worshiper 
is to bring to the tabernacle to the priest. Then you have 
legislation concerning the priesthood. And then you see that put into 
practice in chapters 9 and 10. You see it positively in chapter 
9, the fire of God comes down out of heaven and approvingly 
accepts the sacrifice that they render. And then in chapter 10, 
in verses 1 to 3, you have Nadab and Abihu offer up profane fire 
before the Lord, and God sends fire down, but this time not 
to consume the sacrifice, but the sacrificers. And then from 
thence on we see this emphasis on cleanliness and holiness, 
and that is to mark the people of God so that they can enter 
into the house of God. And then that comes to sort of 
a pinnacle in Leviticus chapter 16, which deals with the Day 
of Atonement. So it was that one day in the 
year where the children of Israel would gather together, the high 
priest would sacrifice one of the goats, and then he would 
go into the Holy of Holies a few times and sprinkle blood on the 
mercy seat, and then he would come out and take that other 
goat, the scapegoat, lay his hands upon that goat, confess 
the sins of Israel, and then drive it out into the wilderness. 
And so we see something at least analogous to the New Covenant 
doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and 
Christ alone. So Leviticus 16, you've got this emphasis on being 
made right with God through atonement. And then, of course, the emphasis 
from chapter 17 and following is on sanctification, or living 
in light of that blessed reality. Again, it's not strictly parallel. 
There are some significant differences. between the Old and the New Covenant, 
but there is that analogy. We are justified freely by God's 
grace, and then we enter into the life of sanctification. So 
we've considered several things with reference to the individual 
here in Leviticus 17 and following, and tonight we're going to read 
chapter 24 and then look at this in some detail. So beginning 
in verse 1, 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. 
"'And you shall take fine flour and bake 12 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. 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 Shalemith, 
the daughter of Debre, of the tribe of Dan. Then they put him 
in custody, that the mind of the Lord might be shown to them. 
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. 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. Whoever kills any man 
shall surely be put to death. Whoever kills an animal shall 
make it good, animal for animal. 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.' 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." Amen. Not a lot of narrative 
section in the book of Leviticus. I've already mentioned chapter 
10 and the sacrifice of Nadab and Abihu. Well, certainly the 
penalty for blasphemy here isn't an abstract sort of a law. It 
is rather a concrete application relative to a particular situation 
in Israel. But as we look at the chapter 
as a whole, you have, first of all, rules for the tabernacle 
in verses 1 to 9, and then secondly, the punishment of blasphemy in 
verses 10 to 23. So let's look first at the rules 
for the tabernacle, and there's two things specified here. The 
lampstand in verses 1 to 4, and then the bread of presence, or 
as the New King James has it, the showbread in verses 5 to 
9. So look first with me at verses 
1 to 4 at the lampstand. Notice in verse 1, you have a 
reminder that this is by way of divine authority. Then the 
Lord spoke to Moses. Now I've pointed that out many 
times as we have moved our way through the book of Leviticus, 
because I think at times we are inclined to think that it's the 
law of Moses. It's not wrong to refer to it 
as the Law of Moses, provided we do not credit Moses as having 
been the origin of it. He is a mediator. He is giving 
it on behalf of Yahweh of Israel. So this is divine commandment. 
So all that follows isn't just suggestive, it isn't just perhaps 
a better way to do society, but this comes from the mouth of 
God Most High. Now, some have wondered why we 
have this emphasis on the lamps and tabernacle and then blasphemy 
in chapter 24. One has suggested, and I think 
with some degree of merit, that after chapter 23, which dealt 
with the feasts of the Lord, the various times on Israel's 
calendar where they would meet together to serve and to glorify 
God, different from the Sabbath day. This is not the one-in-seven 
pattern that Israel was obliged to or commanded to observe by 
God, but this is the various feasts that made up Israel's 
calendar. So one suggests that the emphasis 
on the tabernacle lamps and the bread of the tabernacle was to 
demonstrate that the feasts in chapter 23 do not mitigate the 
daily necessity of the worship of God, at the tabernacle. So just because we have these 
sorts of things that punctuate the calendar, that doesn't mean 
that we no longer have any obligation with reference to daily worship, 
or at least with reference to the priesthood, and their necessity 
to engage in these activities within the tabernacle. Now with 
reference to the lampstand, notice the specific command in verse 
2, So basically you have this stipulated in the book of Exodus 
at chapter 27 verses 20 to 21. you have the design in Exodus 
chapter 25 verses 31 to 39, the construction of the lampstand 
in Exodus chapter 37 verses 17 to 24, and then the setting up 
of the lampstand when they build the tabernacle in Exodus chapter 
40 at verses 25 and 26. So this is not new legislation, this isn't a 
brand new sort of a concept relative to the tabernacle, but it is, 
as I said, a reminder for the daily rhythm of worship with 
reference to the house of the living God. And then notice where 
the placement of the lampstand is in verse 3, 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 generation." So this, 
according to the apostle in Hebrews chapter 9, is in the holy place. You have two compartments in 
the tabernacle. Well, you have three if you consider 
the outer court, but within that actual tent of meeting, you have 
a holy place and then you have the holy of holies. Everybody 
but the high priest was prohibited from going into the Holy of Holies. 
And the high priest didn't just wander in there any old time 
of the week. He went in there once or a couple of times on 
the one day, the Day of Atonement, according to Leviticus chapter 
16. So in Hebrews 9, verse 2, it says, For a tabernacle was 
prepared, the first part, in which was the lampstand, the 
table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary, or the 
holy place. So there was that curtain or 
that veil that separated the holy place from the holy of holies. And as I said, the holy of holies 
was only entered once a year by the high priest for the purpose 
of the day of atonement. Going back to Leviticus chapter 
24, again, just notice that this is not only divine origin in 
terms of the command, but it's the divine regulation. God doesn't 
say just find somebody hanging out in the Walmart parking lot 
and put him in charge of this. No, Aaron shall be in charge 
of it from evening until morning before the Lord continually. And then in verse four, he shall 
be in charge of the lamps on the pure gold lamp stand before 
the Lord continually. When you get to the temple or 
the tabernacle and then the temple, you notice that it's not haphazard, 
it's not up for grabs, there's no vote, there's no sort of suggestion 
from the crowd, hey, I think this guy ought to serve. No, 
it was very strictly regulated by God that it would be the Levites, 
or the tribe of Levi. And within that tribe of Levi, 
you had the specific sons of Aaron that functioned as the 
high priests, but then the Levites themselves took care of all those 
other corollaries with reference to the daily use and the Sabbath 
use and the feastly use of the tabernacle and then temple. And 
then one more time, let us notice that clause in verse 3. It shall 
be a statute forever in your generations. I think at times 
Christians read that and they think, well, should we have a 
lampstand? Should we have a tabernacle? 
Because it says that it's supposed to be a statute forever in your 
generations. That is governed by the Covenant. As long as the Old Covenant is 
in play, then this is binding on the people of God. The Old 
Covenant is no longer. It is obsolete, not because it 
was bad, but because Christ came, fulfilled all the obligations 
placed upon Israel via the Old Covenant. Functioning as the 
Israel of God, he fulfills all righteousness. So he brings in 
and inaugurates the new covenant, which is a better covenant founded 
on better promises that affords a better hope. So it's not the 
case that we need to have lampstands, tabernacles, showbread, and temples. John Gill makes the observation 
concerning that statement. It shall be a statute forever 
in your generations, he says, until the Messiah should come. 
the true light, which would put out all such typical ones, and 
by his gospel spread light in all his churches throughout the 
world." Of course, you can see that connection. There is a typological 
significance in the furniture in the tabernacle. You've got 
this prefigurement concerning Christ and his worship and the 
things that go on in the New Covenant. And then that brings 
us to the bread of presence. Notice the placement in verses 
5 to 7. So basically, you have this table 
that was built, again, in accordance with Exodus 25, verses 23 to 
30, and then Exodus 37, verses 10 to 16. That's the table that 
held the bread of the presence, or the show bread. And then notice 
the placement in verse 6. It says, you shall set them in 
two rows, six in a row, on the pure gold table before the Lord. I think the 12 there represents, 
signifies, makes connection to the 12 tribes of Israel. The 
same sort of thing is seen with reference to the stones that 
the priest wore on his ephod. In Exodus chapter 28, 9 to 12, 
you had the 12 tribes of Israel represented. So the idea being 
is that this tabernacle is the house of God, the meeting place 
with God. And so Israel, the covenant people 
of God, the entirety of them, the 12 tribes, had truck with 
him, had interaction and communion and fellowship with him. And 
then notice the accompaniment with this bread. Verse 7, 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. Again, 
Gill makes this observation concerning Exodus 25, verse 30, specifically 
the statement concerning the showbread. He says, this was 
a memorial of the goodness of God in daily providing bread 
for the people of Israel. One commentator suggests it was 
akin to the practice, you perhaps have seen it in a Chinese restaurant 
before, when they have a statue of Buddha and they put bananas 
or oranges or whatever there. It's to feed the gods. One commentator suggested that 
that was the practice. I think Gil's on the better track. 
So this was a memorial of the goodness of God in daily providing 
bread for the people of Israel, and was presented to him as a 
thankful acknowledgment of it, and being the same they ate at 
their own tables. And this being eaten by the priests 
was expressive of the communion between God and them, they being 
guests of his and feeding on the same provision." So it speaks 
to communion, it speaks to fellowship, it speaks to remembering how 
God provides for the children of Israel with reference to their 
daily bread. Interestingly, Gill goes on to 
say that it was typical of the church and the people of God, 
and then he says, the showbread of fine flour may fitly signify 
Christ. the finest of the wheat, the 
corn of heaven, the bread that comes from thence, its quantity 
twelve cakes, the sufficiency of food within, bread enough 
and to spare for the whole Israel of God, its continuance, the 
permanency of Christ as the food believers have always to feed 
upon. Again, that's a great encouragement 
when we consider that emphasis in John's Gospel, John chapter 
6. The Lord Jesus likens himself 
as the bread of life, or identifies himself as the bread of life. 
And you notice it is placed on that table once a week on the 
Sabbath day, according to verse 8. Every Sabbath he shall set 
it in order before the Lord, continually being taken from 
the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant. Again, 
the everlasting covenant there, I would identify with the old 
covenant. It's everlasting insofar as it is binding upon the people 
of God. It gave way to the new covenant, 
which is the everlasting covenant in this dispensation, if I can 
use that word. And then it shall be for Aaron 
and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place. So this 
would be their portion or their provision. No doubt it would 
be stale, so this wasn't as good as the hot burning meat that 
they got to eat right off the altar. But nevertheless, this 
was part of their provision in terms of their priestly office. 
And then it goes on to say, for it is most holy to him from the 
offerings of the Lord made by fire by a perpetual statute. So reminders concerning the rules 
for the tabernacle in verses 1 to 9. And that brings us to 
the penalty for blasphemy. And again, this isn't abstract. 
This isn't pulled out of the hat of God's law. but there is 
a specific incident that necessitates this revelation concerning the 
disposition of this particular fellow. So basically you have 
the offense in verses 10 to 12, then you have the judgment of 
God in verses 13 to 22, and then you have the execution by the 
people in verse 23. But note first the offense. Verse 
10 says, 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. So it's 
the same sort of situation that you see in Exodus chapter 21. 
Exodus chapter 21, a passage that I think speaks specifically 
relative to the prohibition of abortion. Exodus 21, 22, if men 
fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, 
yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly 
as the woman's husband imposes on him, and he shall pay as the 
judge has determined. But if any harm follows to either 
the woman or her baby or babies, then you shall give life for 
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for 
foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. So 
the same sort of a thing going on. I mean, it's not just 21st 
century North America where fights break out in subway stations 
or in Walmart. I've been seeing people are going 
nuts over Stanley Cups. Not the Stanley Cup, vis-a-vis 
hockey, but cops. Anybody seen that? What is the 
deal with that? Are these like the golden chalice 
that everybody must have? Reminds me of that bit in 1984 
where all the ladies were lining up for saucepans. It's really 
degenerated to such a place where we're just right there alongside 
of 1984. At any rate, we have the same 
sort of people functioning in the old covenant, the way they 
function in the new covenant, in society, and unfortunately 
sometimes in the church. So these two guys get into a 
fight, and now the particular offense comes in verses 11 and 
12. And the Israelite woman's son 
blasphemed the name and cursed. If you notice, if you're using 
the New King James, I didn't have time to check the other 
English versions. Actually, I didn't even think 
to, but if you notice it says the name of the Lord that's supplied 
there, and it's supplied with good warrant and good merit because 
notice in verse 16, whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely 
be put to death. We're certainly dealing with 
the Lord in this particular situation. But it's not uncommon for scripture 
to just refer to God at times by the name. And that's what's 
happening here in verse 11. Now what's the significance of 
the names of God? There are various names of God 
given to him throughout scripture. Van Maastricht makes the observation 
that the nature of God is made known to us by his names. He says, first, they reveal his 
essence. Secondly, they distinguish him 
from false gods and all creatures whatsoever. And then third, they 
make known his properties and qualities. So the names of God 
aren't simply there as identifiers, but they do those things. They 
reveal His essence, they distinguish Him, and they make known His 
properties and qualities. Hermann Bavink says all we can 
learn about God from His revelation is designated His name in Scripture. He goes on to say, the name of 
God in Scripture does not describe God as He exists within Himself. There's a distinction there. 
God in Himself is incomprehensible to us. He reveals Himself propositionally 
in Revelation so that we can learn. We learn by way of what's 
called analogical predication. But God's incomprehensibility 
means that we cannot know God the way that God knows God. And 
so that's what he emphasizes there. All we can learn about 
God from his revelation, I'm sorry, the name of God in scripture 
does not describe God as he exists within himself, but God in his 
revelation and multiple relations to his creatures. This name, 
however, is not arbitrary. God reveals himself in the way 
he does because he is who he is. Summed up in his name, therefore, 
is his honor, his fame, his excellencies, his entire revelation, his very 
being. And I think he's right on with 
reference to that identification of the name. So the Israelite 
woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed, and then 
notice, they detain the offender. So at the end of verse 11, it 
says, so they brought him to Moses. And then it gives us a 
bit of his family. I'm sure his mother was very 
proud of him when she got this knowledge. And then it says, 
then they put him in custody that the mind of the Lord might 
be shown to that. So they brought him to Moses, 
they put him in custody, and then they want to know the mind 
of God. Now, probably they had an idea about the mind of God 
with reference to this particular situation, because previously 
in God's word, in God's law, we see the death penalty mandated 
for cursing parents in Exodus 21, verse 17, and then just turn 
back to Leviticus chapter 20, specifically at verse 9. Exodus chapter, I'm sorry, Leviticus 
chapter 20 verse 9, for everyone who curses his father or his 
mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father 
or his mother. His blood shall be upon him. 
So when we go back to verse 13 in chapter, or verse 12 in verse 
20, chapter 24 says, then they put him in custody that the mind 
of the Lord might be shown to them. Again, they probably had 
a good idea of where this might be going, but the third commandment, 
which is the backdrop for this particular case law application, 
the third commandment says that the Lord will not hold him guiltless 
who takes his name in vain. So quite likely they could have 
thought that God would just directly kill him. God would just vaporize 
him or decimate him right on the spot. Or God would use the 
agency of the civil government, in this case Moses and the judges 
that were functioning, or the elders that were functioning 
at that particular time. So the inquiry makes sense. There's 
this particular situation, and as I said, this is case law. 
Case law is the application in the concrete of something that 
is an abstract principle. So the third commandment prohibits 
the taking of the name of the Lord your God in vain. This is 
an application of that law in civil society relative to this 
particular Israelite who cursed the name of God Almighty. So 
then that brings us to the judgment of God. First, notice the revelation 
of God in verses 13 and 14. Once again, the Lord spoke to 
Moses saying, Moses didn't come up with this. Moses didn't take 
lots and have everybody pick one and draw and see what we 
should do with this particular fellow because he's blasphemed 
and cursed in the name of the Lord God Most High. This is divine 
in its origin. The Lord spoke to Moses saying, 
So I think as new covenant Christians, perhaps one of the questions 
tonight, hopefully not, but one of the questions will be, should 
we execute blasphemers in this new covenant setting? He's already 
poised and ready. He's got it in his holster to 
ask the question. In the New Covenant, the church 
does not have the sword to bear. We live in a society that is 
not directly governed by biblical law. If a society was directly 
governed by biblical law, and it was well known that if you 
blaspheme, you're going to be stoned to death, well then, I 
would guess that that would be absolutely positively okay. Do 
I think that's ever going to happen? I really pretty much 
kind of doubt it. But hey, if that's how it goes, 
then that's how it goes. But we need to remember that 
the analogy between Old Covenant Israel and what we call the New 
Covenant Israel, or the true Israel, or spiritual Israel, 
it's there and it's real, but it's not a one-to-one connection. When we get to the laws of God 
in the Old Testament, there was a priestly class, there was those 
responsible for the cult, there were those responsible for religion, 
and then there were those responsible with reference to the civil state. 
In the New Covenant Church, we're not responsible for the civil 
state. We're not responsible to execute criminal offenders. 
If we have a blasphemer or someone who curses, we go to him. If 
he hears us, we want our brother. If he doesn't, we take two or 
three witnesses. If he doesn't listen to them, 
we tell it to the church. If he doesn't listen to the church, 
then we excommunicate him. We treat him like a heathen and 
a tax collector. But the church has not been given 
the sword to wield in the execution of criminal offenders. That's 
outside of our jurisdiction. So back to the particular text. Or my point was, if we have a 
problem with this kind of legislation, I would suggest or encourage 
us to check our hearts. Because what may appear to be 
barbaric to us in a New Covenant setting, as we look back in Old 
Covenant Israel, it is divine in its origin. God spoke this. And I would suggest, I think 
I mentioned this on Sunday night, to blaspheme or to curse Yahweh 
of Israel was tantamount to treason. He was the sovereign. He was 
the authority. He was the lawmaker. And if you 
resisted that, or if you rejected that, it was a usurpation of 
his government. And so therefore, religiously, 
don't blaspheme the name of the Lord your God, because it's wicked 
and sinful. But civilly, it is an act of 
treason against the civil state. And as a result, you will be 
executed. I mean, treason has become so 
commonplace in Western governments that we forgot how important 
it actually is. You're supposed to actually kill 
traitors. They're not friends of any government. They don't help. They don't advance. 
They don't do good things. There ought to be consequences 
for those who engage in such activity. So back to the text. It's divine in its origin. Verse 
13, the Lord spoke to Moses saying, Notice in verse 14, take outside 
the camp him who has cursed. That is the specific responsibility. You don't sully, you don't dirty, 
you don't render unclean the camp by the shed blood of a particular 
criminal. We have that wonderful bit in 
the book of Hebrews in chapter 13, which shows our curse bearer 
being treated in the same sort of a way. In Hebrews 13 at verse 
10, it says, we have an altar from which those who serve the 
tabernacle have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals 
whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest 
for sin are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that 
he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered 
outside the gate. Therefore let us go forth to 
him outside the camp bearing his reproach. For here we have 
no continuing city, but we seek the one to come. Therefore, by 
him, let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, 
that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name. But 
do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices 
God is well pleased." So back to Leviticus 24, this was the 
stipulation, take him outside of the camp. And then notice 
the agency for the infliction of the penalty. And again, this 
shouldn't surprise us. Because the first statement concerning, 
or the first declaration or command concerning capital punishment, 
the agency was via man. Whoever sheds man's blood by 
man, his blood will be shed. So again, they're waiting to 
hear how God is not going to hold this man guiltless. Is God 
going to decimate him directly, or is he going to use man? Well, 
that's the emphasis. And then notice, then let all 
who heard him lay their hands on his head. So I think this 
foreshadows what you're going to get in Deuteronomy 17 and 
Deuteronomy 19, which two or three witnesses for every capital 
case. And the fact that the witnesses 
laid their hands on that particular head indicates that there are 
witnesses, that this was something that was confirmed. This wasn't 
arbitrary. It wasn't hearsay. It wasn't 
somebody going to Moses and saying, yeah, this guy, blasphemed and 
cursed God. Well, bring him here and let's 
stone him. No, the witnesses had to be there. 
And again, Deuteronomy 17, 6 and 7, Deuteronomy 19, 15 to 21. 
Deuteronomy 19, 15 to 21 is interesting, not that Deuteronomy 17 isn't. But in Deuteronomy 19, we have 
this situation. In fact, turn there, because 
it's very important to see the safeguards that are in place 
with reference to the application of the death penalty in Old Covenant 
Israel. Before 19, look at 17. 17, six and seven, 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. So you shall put away the evil from among you. 
That would increase the gravity. This wasn't New York City. We're 
not talking about teeming millions of people that you never saw, 
never knew. Most likely, the persons that committed crimes, 
you probably saw them from time to time. So if you knew you're 
gonna have to put your hand upon his head and witness against 
him in a capital case, that underscores the gravity of the situation 
and I hope discriminates against or discourages false witness. But if it doesn't, there is a 
specific restriction against false witness in Deuteronomy 
19. Notice in verse 15, one witness shall not rise against a man 
concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits. By the mouth 
of two or three witnesses, the matter shall be established. 
Now, notice, if a false witness rises against any man to testify 
against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall 
stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who 
serve in those days. And the judges shall make careful 
inquiry. And indeed, if the witness is a false witness who has testified 
falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he 
thought to have done to his brother. So you shall put away the evil 
from among you. So again, the same old covenant 
that stipulates execution of criminal offenders puts in safeguards 
and builds parameters and fences around it so that it cannot be 
easily abused. So basically, if I allege that 
Shane is guilty of a capital offense and I'm a false witness, 
and we go before the judges and they discern that I'm a false 
witness, whatever the penalty would have been for him for that 
crime is now turned against me. I'm going to think twice before 
I go to the judges. If I don't have good evidence, 
if I can't see a conviction followed through, I'm not going to go. 
Biblical law really would reduce the litigiousness of man who 
is oftentimes so happy and crazed with trying to get people in 
trouble. And then in verse 20, and those who remain shall hear 
and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil 
among you. Your eyes shall not pity. Life 
shall be for life. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, 
hand for hand, foot for foot. So back to Leviticus 24, the 
agency, witnesses, and then all the congregation. And notice 
all the congregation stones the man and stones him to death. 
Then we have the command of God in verses 15 and 16. Then you 
shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, whoever curses 
his God shall bear his sin. And when it says his God, he's 
not saying that, you know, if you're a Hittite and you have 
particular gods, don't curse it. If you're a Jebusite and 
you have particular gods, don't curse. He's talking about God. 
He's talking about Yahweh. He's talking to the children 
of Israel. Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. That 
means he's liable to the punishment involved with that. He is responsible 
for that particular sin. 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. Go back to the book of Exodus to chapter 12 for just 
a quick moment, because twice strangers are mentioned in Leviticus 
24. Where'd all these strangers come 
from? Well, perhaps once they leave the bondage of Egypt, there 
are a multitude that go with them. Notice in Exodus chapter 
12, specifically at verse 38. A mixed multitude went up with 
them also, and flocks and herds, a great deal of livestock. So 
in other words, the Egyptians didn't just enslave the Israelites. They had other people as well. 
I doubt it was just they had an anti-Semitic bent, and all 
they wanted to do was get those nasty Jews. No, they had other 
people under their bondage as well. And so when this exodus 
event occurs, this mixed multitude goes up with them also, flocks 
and herds, a great deal of livestock. Now, as they close in on the 
promised land, as they get stationed in the promised land, there's 
proselytes, there's people that come in amongst them. And so, 
when we come to this prohibition, you can't plead, well, I'm not 
an Israelite, I'm not a covenant citizen, I worship Molech, or 
I worship Asherah, or I worship Baal. No, whoever blasphemes 
the name of the Lord God of Israel, when he blasphemes the name of 
the Lord, he shall be put to death. And then you've got some 
reminders by God. Reminders by God in verses 17 
to 22. Not new legislation, but reminder 
consistent with the death penalty legislation given here in verses 
13 to 16. So we've got the death penalty 
now including blasphemy or cursing God. So we are reminded in verse 
17, whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death. Now we 
know, based on our studies earlier in the book of Leviticus, we 
know that the killing here is murder. It's got malice aforethought, 
it's premeditated, it's the desire on the part of one person to 
rid the earth of another person. Again, with malice in his heart. 
It is not accidental homicide that's in view. So whoever kills 
any man shall surely be put to death. Remember the three instances 
of lawful killing. You've got self-defense, you've 
got just war, and you've got capital punishment. Those three 
things are not murder. Those three things are homicide, 
but they're not murder. All murder is killing, but not 
all killing is murder. And it's good for us to remember 
that. And then notice, there is a distinction between man 
and animal. Verse 18, whoever kills an animal 
shall make it good, animal for animal. There's legislation in 
Exodus 22, 1 to 15, that deals with people in the Old Covenant 
community and the various issues that befall them relative to 
animals. But there's nothing answering 
specifically to this. There's nothing strictly parallel 
to this. In the general principle, whoever 
kills an animal shall make it good, animal for animal. See, 
that's not what it is with reference to man. If you kill a man in 
a sinful, criminal way, you must be executed. If you kill an animal, 
You are not to be executed. There is a distinction built 
in that we see at the creation of man. Man is the pinnacle of 
God's creative work. Man is not like the animal. I 
mean, we are, there's similarities to be sure, but we bear the image 
of God and the animal does not. That's the distinction. And then notice the principle 
of retributive justice. In Latin, this is the lex talionis. So verse 19, 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. I think it's, at least it's been 
in my head, was there a subset of Levites that went out and 
broke bones and popped out eyes and, you know, had pliers and 
ripped out teeth? The idea here, that wouldn't 
be a fun job. I'm sure some beasts out there 
would, not out here, but out there somewhere would like that. 
But the principle is that the punishment must fit the crime. 
That's what it means. I read the section in Exodus 
21 when the men fight and they hurt a woman who is pregnant 
and she gives birth prematurely, then the lax talionis, or the 
law of retribution, applies. And so if the mother and her 
premature babies die, then the man who struck her must die. Because this law, Exodus 21, 
covers the mother and her baby. Plural, so it could be babies. 
It envisages twins, triplets, whatever the next one is. Quattro? 
No. What is it? OK, yeah. And then five and then 
six, however many she may may have in there. So anyway, so 
we got the lex talionis repeated here. You'll also see it again 
in Deuteronomy chapter 1921. Basically, any system of justice 
operates on this principle. The punishment must fit the crime. 
And interestingly, Old Covenant law, or the law regulating the 
Israelites, is different than other ancient Near Eastern codes. With reference to the ancient 
Near Eastern world, they were a lot more liberal with harsh 
punishment for property crimes. The old covenant law was not. There's only one case of punitive 
amputation in the book of Deuteronomy, and it has nothing to do with 
a property situation. So when it comes, however, to 
life, human life, there is a strictness about God's law regulating that 
particular crime. And then the distinction between 
animal death and human death is repeated in verse 21. And 
then in verse 22, we see again the comprehensiveness of the 
law. And then in verse 23, the execution 
by the people. Then Moses spoke to the children 
of Israel. They took outside the camp him 
who had cursed, stoned him with stones. So the children of Israel 
did as the Lord commanded Moses. There was a perpetuity about 
this as well. There are other instances in 
scripture where we see the blasphemy law appealed to with reference 
to the execution of individuals. Naboth and his vineyard in 1 
Kings chapter 21, specifically at verses 10 to 13. Remember 
Woman of the Year Jezebel came up with this idea to accuse Naboth 
of blasphemy so that he could be executed. so that Ahab could 
then co-opt his land and take it from him. He made the deal. 
He tried to buy it. But Naboth was a righteous and 
upright man. He didn't want to sell it. So 
Jezebel cooks up this plan. Scoundrels do come. They allege 
that Naboth was a blasphemer. And of course, he's executed. 
This was the case of Jesus. When the Sanhedrin goes before 
Pontius Pilate, they don't accuse Jesus of being a blasphemer. 
That would not have flown with Pilate. That was not a crime 
that Pilate would have been concerned about. If Jesus asserted that 
he was the Messiah or the Son of God, Pilate might have thought 
he was not all there, but he wouldn't have said he's a threat 
to the civil polity in Rome. So when they go before Pontius 
Pilate, they say something that Pilate would be provoked by. 
He forbids paying taxes. And he asserts that he's a king 
in the sense that he's going to subjugate the Roman Empire. But with reference to the Sanhedrin 
trial, when the high priest puts Jesus under oath and says, are 
you the Son of God? Are you the Messiah of God? Jesus 
affirms that. What does the high priest do? 
He tears his garment. He says, we have no need of further 
witnesses. We've heard it for ourselves. 
This man is guilty of blasphemy. And then the godly man, Stephen, 
according to Acts chapter 6, he is accused of blasphemy. Remember 
they try to dispute with him and he bests them because he's 
filled with the spirit, he's filled with wisdom. So what do 
they do? They turn to plan B. Well, let's 
kill him. It's an unfortunate reality about 
the enemies of Christ. If you best them in argument, 
they'll just try to kill you. And so what they alleged is that 
Stephen himself had been a blasphemer and ultimately he is executed 
according to chapter 7 in the book of Acts. So there's chapter 
24. We learn not, first of all, to 
profane God's name. Secondly, we ought to engage 
in a proper use of God's name. Westminster Larger Catechism 
number 112 says, the third commandment requires that the name of God, 
His titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, 
oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is 
whereby he makes himself known, be wholly and reverently used 
in thought, meditation, word, and writing, by an holy profession 
and answerable conversation to the glory of God and the good 
of ourselves and others. Well, may God help us to control 
our tongues, to control our minds, to keep our own hearts with all 
diligence, knowing that from it spring the issues of life, 
and that we may not profane the name of our great God. Well, 
let us pray. Our Father in heaven, we thank 
you for your word. We thank you for the glory and the majesty 
and the excellence and power of God that we see behind passages 
like these. Your name is holy. Your name 
is to be hallowed. Your name does represent your 
nature. And we thank you that you have 
revealed yourself to us in the scriptures by the various names 
that we do find. We thank you for these things 
that teach us concerning you. We pray that you would help us 
not to profane that blessed name, help us to have a proper use 
of it in our hearts and minds and with our words. And God, 
go with us now, give us grace in the remainder of this week, 
bring us together on the Lord's day. We look forward to seeing 
our sisters enter the waters of baptism and pray that it would 
be a blessed day for them, for all of us, and for any that come 
in among us that are unsaved. We pray that that would be the 
day of salvation. We ask in Jesus' name, amen. 
Any questions or comments? Yes, sir. Well, we saw in a few 
chapters the two or three witness against capital punishment, and 
I guess against all crime. And then we go over to the discipline 
passage of Matthew 18. My understanding of it is it's 
not a passage for like, if you have two people, you have a church, 
but it's that witness group against, for 
example, the punishment being doled out to the church. And 
so it's not a passage of church, but of Christ just confirming 
the judgment. Right, specifically in a disciplinary 
setting. I had cause to reflect on this 
recently. The Belgian Confession, Article 
29, speaks of three marks of the church. Preaching the word, 
the administration of the sacraments, and then the exercise of discipline. 
And each of those things have a promise, a specific promise 
in the New Testament of Christ's presence. So preaching, we have 
Romans chapter 10. How shall they hear him without 
a preacher? The apostle Paul charges Timothy 
before God and the Lord Jesus Christ to preach the word. So 
preaching Christ is there. As well, with reference to the 
sacraments, 1 Corinthians chapter 10 and 11, we don't need the 
real presence, be it of illusorism or Catholicism, the physical 
presence of Jesus, that's a violation of the Christology, but He's 
there, present, really, by the Spirit. And I don't think it's 
wrong to apply it. If two or three brethren are 
together and they're praying, yeah, we trust Christ is in our 
midst. But the specific application in Matthew 18 is in the exercise 
of church discipline. This isn't willy-nilly. This 
isn't arbitrary, it's not capricious. If you're doing what God would 
have you to do in obedience to the Word, you have the sanction 
of God behind you. And I think we see that in Matthew 
16. You've got that sort of universal 
church emphasis, but what is mentioned there is the keys of 
the kingdom. and the ability to bind and loose. 
And then when you get to Matthew 18, in a specific local church 
context, that authority of binding and loosing carries down into 
the local church arena. And so when the church functions 
the way she's supposed to and exercises discipline, we have 
the promise that Christ is there. So each of those three marks, 
Christ is present in the midst of them. Yeah, all the marks 
in the present. That's really cool. Thank you. 
All right. Anyone else? Good. Have a good night. It's supposed 
to be cold tomorrow, right? Will you wear a jacket?