Section VIII Holy Oil, Holy Bread, and the Holy Name
Leviticus 24:1-23
The illumination of the Tabernacle was provided by a great golden candlestick (4, lampstand) with seven lamps (see Chart A). Its construction is described in Exod. 25:31-40, while the preparation of the oil and its supply are detailed in Exod. 27: 20-21. It was to burn perpetually in the tabernacle (3) before the Lord. The candlestick was placed on the south side of the holy place (see Chart A), a room which had no other source of light. It was to be supplied with the finest of olive oil (2). The symbolical significance of this lamp may be indicated in the promise that Israel was to be a light among the nations of the world. The vision of Zechariah 4 would support this, as would the vision of John in Rev. 1:12-20. Note also the role of the Christian believers in Phil. 2:15. This role is to be a perpetual one and is possible only through the enabling of the Holy Spirit, symbolized in the pure oil. The expression, He shall order the lamps (4), means, “He shall keep the lamps in order upon the lamp-stand” (RSV).
In this section we find the instruction concerning the shewbread. In Exod. 25:23-30 the table for it is described (see also Chart A). Here the priests are told the use of the pure table (6). Twelve cakes (5, loaves of bread) were to be prepared and kept before the Lord (6) at all times. Pieces of frankincense (7) were to be placed on the bread. According to Jewish tradition, the frankincense was burned on the altar of burnt sacrifice with the offerings of oil and wine when the old bread was replaced by new each week. The old bread then was to be used as food for the priests (9). The loaves could have symbolized the fact that man's daily bread is a gift from God. They might also suggest that the labor of man's hands is to be given back to God, who gives to man that with which he works.
A story is inserted about a man who blasphemed the name of the Lord (11) and the penalty that resulted. The Decalogue gave no specific penalty for profanation of the divine name. Hence Moses sought from the Lord (12) a decision as to what to do with the guilty one. In ward (12) would be “in custody” (Amp. OT). A similar story about a violation of the law of the Sabbath is inserted in the same fashion in Num. 15:32-36. In this case of blasphemy the one involved was only half Israelite, his father being an Egyptian (10). He could thus represent that “mixed multitude” mentioned in Exod. 12:38. The answer that is given shows that there is no difference between the Israelite and the non-Israelite in such matters—Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin (15).
Here is an illustration of the fact that there were no sacrifices provided for violation of the Decalogue as such. The sacrifices were only for those within the covenant, and violation of the Decalogue was a repudiation of the covenant. It is difficult for modern men to understand such severity for what is called a mere verbal sin. But the ancient world looked upon verbal sins as having genuine reality. And what, we may ask, demonstrates one's attitude toward the sacred and the holy God more than the way in which a man uses holy words? Erdman writes:
Nothing is more perilous or more injurious to a community or a nation than irreverence toward things which are sacred. Profanity and blasphemy are sins which involve exceptional guilt. Reverence toward God is the foundation not only of religion but of morality. There is a message for the present day even in this tragic episode which emphasizes the need for reverencing the Holy Name.1
This story of blasphemy is used to introduce a series (17-22) of examples of lex talionis—the principle of eye for eye and tooth for tooth (20). All have been mentioned earlier in the Pentateuch but are repeated here to show that this principle extends to both Israelite and non-Israelite (22).
It is often contended that Jesus repudiated this principle in the Sermon on the Mount, and it is true insofar as personal revenge is concerned. Allis is right, though, when he asserts that this incident is intended to be a law of public justice, not private revenge, and that compensation for injuries probably took the form of fines.2 This position is supported by the facts (a) that only murder (Num. 35:31f.) is excluded from crimes for which ransom is permissible, and (b) that Mosaic law opposed mutilation. It must be remembered that the principle of “an eye for an eye” is rather basic to all civilized law. In fact one cannot play a game except on the basis that what is right for one is right for the other and that every violation of this principle must receive its due penalty.
Interpersonal dealings are another matter. But even in this area, love that turns the other cheek says little to the offending party unless he and the offended both know the difference between justice and injustice.