Leviticus 24:10

And the son of an Israelitish woman,.... Whose name, and the name of his mother, are afterwards given; whose father [was] an Egyptian; Jarchi says, this is the Egyptian whom Moses slew, Exodus 2:12;

And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; The

Whose father was an Egyptian: this circumstance seems noted, partly to show the danger of marriages with persons of wicked principles or practices, wherein the children, as one wittily and truly observes, like the conclusion, do commonly follow the worse part, and are more easily taught by word or example to do ten things agreeable to their corrupt natures, than one thing contrary to it; and partly by this severity against him who was a stranger by the father, and an Israelite by the mother, to show that God would not have this sin to go unpunished amongst his people, whatsoever he was that committed it. Went out, to wit, out of Egypt, being one of that mixed multitude which came out with the Israelites, . It is probable this was done when the Israelites were near Sinai. Strove together: this is added to show that provocation to sin is no justification of sin.

Leviticus 24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father [was] an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;Ver. 10. Whose father was an Egyptian.] His mother taught him to speak, his father to blaspheme. Strove together.] In the beat of contention, what will not men say or do? “ … qui non moderabitur irae, Indictum velit esse, dolor quod suaserit, et mens. ”

(10) The son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian.—The name of the Israelitish woman, whose son is the subject of the narrative before us, we are afterwards told was Shelomith. She had married an Egyptian whilst she and her people were still in Egypt. Though the father’s nationality is here expressly given, yet from the fact that he does not personally come before us in this incident, it is evident that he remained in Egypt, whilst the son was of the “mixed multitude” who followed the Israelites in their exodus (Exodus 12:38). This incident, therefore, which is so difficult satisfactorily to connect with the preceding legislation, brings before us a picture of the camp-life of the Israelites in the wilderness. According to tradition, the father of this blasphemer was the taskmaster under whom Shelomith’s husband worked in Egypt, that he had injured Shelomith and then smote her husband, that this was the Egyptian whom Moses slew (Exodus 2:11) for the injuries he had thus inflicted both upon the Hebrew and his wife, and that the culprit before us is the issue of the outraged Shelomith by the slain Egyptian. This will explain the rendering here of the ancient Chaldee version, “A wicked man, a rebel against the God of heaven, had come out of Egypt, the son of the Egyptian who slew an Israelite in Egypt, and outraged his wife, who conceived, and brought forth this son among the children of Israel.” Went out among the children of Israel.—Better, he went out into the midst, &c. This shows that he lived outside the camp and came where he had no right to be. This son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together.—The cause and the manner of their quarrel or contention are not given. But. according to tradition, the “man of Israel” was a Danite, and, as we are told in the next verse, his mother was of the tribe of Dan, this semi-Egyptian contended with this Danite that he had a right from the side of his mother to encamp among the children of Dan, whilst the Danite disputed this, maintaining that a son could only pitch his tent by the standard of his father’s name (Numbers 2:2). This contention, moreover, took place before the rulers who tried the case (Exodus 19:21-22). Hence the ancient Chaldee version translates it, “And while the Israelites were dwelling in the wilderness, he sought to pitch his tent in the midst of the tribe of the children of Dan; but they would not let him, because, according to the order of Israel, every man, according to his order, dwelt with his family by the ensign of his father’s house. And they strove together in the camp. Whereupon the son of the Israelitish woman and the man of Israel who was of the tribe of Dan went into the house of judgment.”

Verse 10. The son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, c.] This is a very obscure account, and is encumbered with many difficulties. 1. It seems strange that a person proceeding from such an illegal mixture should have been incorporated with the Israelites. 2. What the cause of the strife between this mongrel person and the Israelitish man was is not even hinted at. The rabbins, it is true, supply in their way this deficiency they say he was the son of the Egyptian whom Moses slew, and that attempting to pitch his tent among those of the tribe of Dan, to which he belonged by his mother's side, Leviticus 24:11, he was prevented by a person of that tribe as having no right to a station among them who were true Israelites both by father and mother. In consequence of this they say he blasphemed the name of the Lord. But, 3. The sacred text does not tell us what name he blasphemed; it is simply said ויקב את השם vaiyihkob eth hashshem, he pierced through, distinguished, explained, or expressed the name. (See below, article 10.) As the Jews hold it impious to pronounce the name יהוה Yehovah, they always put either אדני Adonai, Lord, or השם hashshem, THE NAME, in the place of it; but in this sense hashshem was never used prior to the days of rabbinical superstition, and therefore it cannot be put here for the word Jehovah. 4. Blaspheming the name of the Lord is mentioned in Leviticus 24:16, and there the proper Hebrew term is used שם יהוה shem Yehovah, and not the rabbinical השם hashshem, as in Leviticus 24:11. 5. Of all the manuscripts collated both by Kennicott and De Rossi, not one, either of the Hebrew or Samaritan, has the word Jehovah in this place. 6. Not one of the ancient VERSIONS, Targum of Onkelos, Hebraeo-Samaritan, Samaritan version, Syriac, Arabic, Septuagint, or Vulgate Latin, has even attempted to supply the sacred name. 7. Houbigant supposes that the Egypto-Israelitish man did not use the name of the true God at all, but had been swearing by one of his country gods; and if this was the case the mention of the name of a strange god in the camp of Israel would constitute a very high crime, and certainly expose to the punishment mentioned in Leviticus 24:14. 8. Probably the word השם hashshem was the proper name of some Egyptian deity. 9. The fifteenth verse seems to countenance the supposition that the god whose name was produced on this occasion was not the true God, for it is there said, whosoever curseth his god, אלהיו elohaiv, shall bear his sin - shall have the punishment due to him as an idolater; but he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, שם יהוה shem Yehovah, shall surely be put to death - when he blasphemeth the name (שם shem) he shall die, Leviticus 24:16. 10.

10–23. Incident of the blasphemer, and laws arising out of that occurrence or suggested by it. This section closely resembles Numbers 15:32-36, which relates the punishment of the man found gathering sticks on the sabbath day. The blasphemer was only half Israelite; according to Deuteronomy 23:8 children of the Edomites and the Egyptians were admitted into the congregation in the third generation, but after the Return alliances with Egyptians and other ‘strange’ nations were prohibited (Ezra 9, 10; Nehemiah 13) on the ground that from such mixed marriages harmful results to the Jewish faith might be anticipated.

10. Son of an Israelitish woman — The repetition of the statement that the blasphemer was the son of an Egyptian father and a Hebrew mother shows clearly the design of the author to direct attention