Daily Devotion | Leviticus 24:10–23 | 2026 March 23

Title: Daily Devotion | Leviticus 24:10–23 | 2026 March 23

Scripture: Leviticus 24:10–23 (ESV, reference only)

Date: 2026 March 23

Speaker: Rev. John Chen

Transcribed, translated & edited by: Joseph Wang (Yufan)

Well, dear brothers and sisters, peace to you all. Thanks be to God for His grace that we have come to a new day to study the daily spiritual food. The passage we are studying today is Leviticus chapter 24, verses 10 to 23. Let us pray. God, we thank You. We thank You for having mercy on us. Lord, You always use Your statutes to remind us that we must live a holy life. Before You we confess how greatly our hearts incline toward the world. Lord, once we leave Your church, our hearts turn toward the world. O Lord, may You awaken our ears this morning, so that we may follow You. In Christ’s name, Amen.

All right, let us look at today’s passage. Today’s passage is divided into three parts. Let us first look at verses 10 to 16. What kind of story is told here? It is a story of punishment according to a case. That is, after God’s law had been proclaimed, this is the first person who was put to death by it. We mentioned this before: in the Bible there is often this kind of pattern. After God’s glory is manifested, immediately there will be some human sin, and then God will deal with that human sin.

It seems that this pattern is always there. For example, earlier, after the sacrifices were offered, when God’s glory filled the tabernacle, immediately Nadab and Abihu were struck down; they offered unauthorized fire and were struck down. Then in the New Testament, we know that when the early church was established, Ananias and Sapphira, that husband and wife, lied and deceived the Holy Spirit and were struck down. These are two very obvious examples. But there are also examples we need to pay attention to. There are some examples, such as when David was bringing the ark into Jerusalem and Uzzah was struck down and died, right? That is one event. And those are what we may call major events. Then there are smaller events, like Uzzah being struck down—this is a smaller event.

And today’s event may be one you have not paid attention to: after God’s law had just been so clearly proclaimed, there was a man who sinned and was put to death. This seems to be a pattern. Then if you think further, in the book of Joshua, after the Israelites had won the victory, they then failed at Ai. And why? The reason was that Achan sinned, and so Achan was put to death. So we have mentioned several larger patterns and also several smaller patterns, and then you will discover that this pattern actually keeps appearing among the Israelites. And then there is Exodus chapter 32, right? When Moses went up the mountain to receive the tablets of the law, the Israelites sinned by worshiping the golden calf. So I say, if you go looking for this kind of pattern, actually in the Bible it appears again and again.

That is, whenever God is about to be glorified, there is always some person who sins and must be put to death. This shows God’s holiness. So this pattern reminds us that in the midst of God’s grace we must certainly live a holy life and must not act recklessly according to our own will.

So here it speaks about the son of an Israelite woman. His mother had married an Egyptian, right? This man’s mother has a name, and his mother’s father also has a name, but this man himself alone has no name. This is something you should ask whether you noticed. It does not say what he was called. This shows that, in God’s sight, this man was not one of God’s people, right? While in the camp of Israel, what did he do? He fought with another man. Now it does not say exactly why he was fighting with someone. But if he was fighting with someone, actually there were ways to handle that, right? He could have appealed. He could have gone to the elders of Israel, or to Moses’ officials over fifty, over a hundred, and over a thousand. Those structures still existed.

But when this man faced his own matter, he did not deal with it according to the requirements of the law. Instead, what did he do? He blasphemed the Holy Name and cursed. Very obviously, this violated the Third Commandment. The Third Commandment is that you shall not take God’s name in vain. Even taking it in vain is not permitted, and now he was blaspheming the Holy Name, even cursing the Holy Name. So very obviously this matter had to be dealt with. But how should it be dealt with? Because this was the first time this matter had to be handled, they had no experience. So what did they do? They directly asked what the LORD would say. And the LORD said, bring the one who cursed the Holy Name outside the camp, and let those who heard it lay their hands—

—on his head. That is, this sin, this matter of cursing the Holy Name, was something that even to hear was intolerable. And after hearing it, that guilt was to be placed upon his head. Then the whole congregation was to stone him to death. This was the first time Israel, as a group, dealt with this evil matter, in order to tell the Israelites that they must honor the Holy Name, must glorify the Holy Name, must not blaspheme the Holy Name, and still less curse the Holy Name. The result of cursing the Holy Name is death. The whole congregation stoned him to death.

Then God told Moses to speak to the Israelites: 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. Whether sojourner or native, when he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death. So here we must know that, as this nation of Israel, their purpose was to make God’s name be exalted and God’s name be glorified. In whatever they did and in whatever they practiced, it was all to make this God’s name known to more people.

So among all people, to violate this Third Commandment, to blaspheme the Holy Name and curse the Holy Name, is obviously to shame God’s name and to slander God’s works. Then this son of the Israelite woman—right?—you were fighting with someone else; what does that have to do with Jesus, or with God? If you have a problem, just handle it with the person. But obviously this man hated God. He simply did not regard God’s name as holy. He despised and blasphemed God’s holy name. And the result is very clear: he had to be stoned to death.

So this tells us that God values His name, and God requires His people to glorify His name. All behavior that violates this is worthy of death. Through this case it also reminds the Israelites that they must not take God’s name in vain, must not blaspheme God’s name. In whatever they do, they must do it for the glory of God, and must not do things that bring shame upon God’s name.

So I think the Third Commandment, as it is applied in our lives, is actually something I especially mentioned when I taught on the Ten Commandments. The Third Commandment has an extremely broad application in our daily life. It is not simply that we verbally curse God. Rather, when our behavior does not glorify God, when we do not obey the law, when we do not manifest God’s glory, then in fact we are already shaming God’s name, right? If our conduct is no different from that of the Gentiles, if we love the world just as the people of the world do, if we pursue the world just as they do, if we also do not keep God’s law, then what will be the result? The result will certainly be that the Gentiles, when they look at us,

will not see God’s glory in us, and so they will shame the Lord’s name, saying, “And you are still a Christian?” Right? “Even we unbelievers would not do this. Can Christians still do this?” Right? This is God’s name being shamed. So this is the point we need to pay attention to. In all things we must be careful and must not take God’s name in vain. The meaning of the Third Commandment also shows that in our lives we must continually strive to obey God’s statutes and ordinances and to live a good moral life. This is very important, so that each one of us may properly glorify God’s name.

All right, this is about the one who blasphemed God’s name being put to death. Next, verses 17 to 22. It feels very strange that these are inserted here. When you read these verses, it says: whoever strikes down a man shall surely be put to death; whoever strikes down a beast shall make restitution for it, life for life. Just before this, one man had been put to death, so why does it start saying again that whoever kills a man shall surely be put to death? It seems a bit disconnected. In fact, I think this is exactly connected. What does it mean? It means that for the Israelites, as a nation, as a government to whom God had given authority, a theocratic government, they had the right to put people to death. This is something we need to remember. Verses 10 to 16 tell us this. As for the reasons, we will not repeat them now, because we already spoke of them before—why was he to be put to death? But another point is that the government does have the authority to put people to death. The government as a collective body can do this.

“Whoever strikes down a man shall surely be put to death”—this refers to you as a private individual. You personally cannot go and kill another person. A private person cannot take private revenge. In other words, here the old covenant is requiring the Israelites that if you have some matter, you may present it to this theocratic government, and that government will handle it according to the rules. But you yourself cannot deal with it privately. That is the meaning. You cannot handle this matter in private.

This is the first point. Then the second point is that verses 17 to 22 show the principle of lex talionis. It is called the principle of retaliation in kind. Whoever kills a man shall be put to death. Whoever kills a beast shall make restitution for the beast. Life for life. If anyone causes disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. If he causes disfigurement, it shall be done to him likewise. Whoever kills a beast shall make restitution for it; whoever kills a man shall be put to death. The same rule applies to all.

So here, in verses 17 to 22, it seems as though it is repeated twice. What is the purpose? It is to tell us the importance of this ordinance. The principle of retaliation in kind is one feature of the Mosaic law. Now this law causes many people trouble. Why? Because of Jesus’ explanation. When we read this passage with the perspective of the New Testament, we feel especially uncomfortable. Did not Jesus say, if someone strikes you on the left cheek, turn to him the right also? Did He not say that if someone asks you to go one mile, go with him two? Then how has it become the principle of retaliation in kind here? So here I want to make an explanation, so that everyone may understand what exactly is going on.

First, let us not bring Jesus’ teaching into this just yet. In a moment I will explain why Jesus said that. The first thing I want to tell everyone is that the Mosaic law, as the law of a nation, a theocratic nation, is completely reasonable. Because as a government, since the Israelites lived according to the law, then as a government, in order to carry out the principle of justice and righteousness, it had to carry out the principle of retaliation in kind, right? Whoever kills a man shall be put to death; whoever kills a beast shall make restitution for the beast. This is the most basic standard of fairness that a government ought to have. If it were not like this—if there were not wound for wound, eye for eye, tooth for tooth—then society would be unjust. So first of all, as a theocratic nation, it is reasonable that Moses brought in the principle of retaliation in kind. This is the first point I want to make.

Second, relative to the laws of that era, the Mosaic law was a tremendous advance. How so? If you refer to the Code of Hammurabi from the same period, or other laws from ancient Near Eastern nations, it was not like this. For example, if someone killed a person—if a master killed a slave, it did not matter; there was no need for compensation. So brothers, I hope you can notice something here. Namely, when it says here that whoever kills a person shall surely be put to death, there is no prior condition attached to that.

What Moses is actually telling everyone here is the dignity of human life, and equality. But in the ancient Near East, in Moses’ time, this concept was far too advanced, because that concept simply did not exist at all. A master could freely beat a servant to death. It was as though the master could bully the servant. But here, the principle being stated is a very general principle: all people are under the same rule. So from this angle, the advanced character of the Mosaic law is obvious.

The Mosaic law respects human rights. If a man killed a woman, he did not need to pay? If he killed a daughter, then what? So you see here that no matter who it is, the principle of retaliation in kind is clearly laid down. So I think this is a very precious and very advanced ordinance, one that can help us appreciate God’s heart of love for man, right? Wound for wound, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; if he causes disfigurement, it shall be done to him likewise. As far as a government is concerned, this is completely reasonable, something a government should have, and it is also an expression of respect for human rights.

From this we also see God’s love for slaves, God’s love for the weak, and many other things. For example, if the strong beat the weak, then what can the weak do? Normally, they can only be bullied. But here, the weak can fully go and bring the matter to the government and say, “My person has been beaten to death; what should be done?” Then the one who killed must indeed be put to death. Actually, this ordinance—do not even speak of the ancient Near East—even in Chinese history, if you look at folk stories, it was often very hard to carry this out. If a poor person was beaten to death, then once he was beaten to death, he was simply beaten to death, right? Then what more could be said? It was common for poor people to be bullied by the rich, and for the weak to be bullied by the strong. But in the principle of retaliation in kind, we are told that God protects the rights of the weak. This is my second point.

The third point is that we should not underestimate the principle of retaliation in kind. We may feel, from Jesus’ perspective, that this seems very barbaric. But actually it is not at all. Let us imagine our own lives: do we really follow this principle of retaliation in kind? Actually, we do not. Usually, if someone says just one sentence against us, or if someone looks down on us, then in our hearts we curse them. We almost wish they would be hit by a car. We wish they would become even more miserable. In our hearts, there is simply no principle of retaliation in kind at all.

Theoretically speaking, if someone insults you once, then you should insult him back once, right? If someone looks down on you, then at most you look down on him. I am saying this—actually this is not how it ought to be done; it ought to be handed over to the government. My point is simply this: as far as you personally are concerned, at the very least, that is all you could do. But what do we do? Someone curses us once, and we wish we could punch him. Right? Someone punches us once, and we wish we could beat him to death. This is our heart. In fact, in our hearts there is no such principle of retaliation in kind at all. You insulted me, right? Then I will ruin your whole household. I will come and harm you. We are not operating by retaliation in kind at all; we have a heart that is even more evil. This is the third point by which I think we are being reminded.

Then the fourth point is that I want to respond to the explanation given by Jesus in the New Testament. When the Lord Jesus, in Matthew chapter 5, mentions this principle of retaliation in kind, we need to make some response to it. Here you need to notice that first of all the Lord Jesus is not speaking from the perspective of a governing authority. The government has this right. Here the Lord Jesus is saying that when you personally suffer harm from another person, you may lay down your right, and you may lay down your claim, in order to fulfill a higher principle. This is what Matthew chapter 5 tells us.

So when, in our lives, we encounter such things, we may use Jesus’ love to bear with that person, to endure him. But the purpose of enduring him is not to indulge him. Rather, it is to guide him to turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. This is what we need to pay attention to. Jesus’ endurance and forbearance do not show Jesus’ weakness. Rather, by love He tells the person what God’s attributes are, so that person may be led to turn to Christ. So when we read this passage, when we read the Old Testament, this is one thing we need to pay attention to.

First of all, this right is given to you. Jesus was able to lay down His right because He had that right, correct? It is not that everyone simply ought to do this in exactly the same way. Rather, because of God’s purpose, I am willing to do this matter. I am willing to lay down my right, and the purpose is to fulfill a higher standard, to let you know that God is love.

So in our daily lives we need to pay attention to this: as Christians, we must act according to the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. When others harm us in life, we are willing actively to give up our rights in order to accomplish God’s will. But when you lay down your rights, you must also pay attention and be careful. It is not simply an endless retreat, retreating in such a way that you give others an opportunity to bully us at will. On the contrary, we are intentionally, according to God’s will, being patient, accepting, forbearing, and loving that person, with the purpose of making known God’s love toward him.

So when we interpret Matthew chapter 5, we need wisdom. It is not that we simply interpret it according to the bare letter, because this requires context. Principle, circumstance, and motive—these three must be brought together before we can handle this matter prudently. It is not something as simple as, “You hit me, so I just let you hit me.” It is not that simple. Because verse 42 is very clear: “Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” Then very clearly, you obviously cannot apply that directly, according to the bare letter, in ordinary life, right? If someone comes and says to you, “Give me all your savings,” surely you cannot give it to him.

So what I mean is that when we interpret Matthew chapter 5, wisdom is needed. Of course, God certainly calls us to love the other person, but this love has skill to it; that is the principle. And then you must combine that with circumstance and motive, and place it into that model, and think about it carefully: at this moment, should I tolerate him, bear with him, and love him, or should I point out his evil? This is a very skillful kind of action. It is not that we simply take the wording and apply it wholly to ourselves in a simplistic way. This, I think, is something we need wisdom to handle. This is a question of Christian ethics. It is not that the Lord Jesus did not give us the standard—He did. This is the Lord Jesus’ word. This is the principle. But the matter must be placed in a particular circumstance, and our motive must also be considered, in order to deal with it in such a way that it is acceptable before God. Otherwise we will appear rigid, as though we had no wisdom at all.

So that is my analysis of the principle of lex talionis.

All right, next, verse 23. Moses then spoke to the Israelites, and they brought out the man who had cursed the Holy Name, and according to this word they laid their hands on his head, and then they stoned him to death. So this is the first case after the promulgation of the law: this one man was put to death because he had blasphemed the Holy Name. It tells the Israelites that they must not blaspheme God’s name, but must honor God’s name.

And here, by explaining the principle of lex talionis so clearly, what is being told to us? It tells us that God does not permit evil. Those who, in this present life, only seem to enjoy God’s forbearance and patience—if they remain as they are, then in the end they will certainly, because of their sin, come under God’s curse. This is something we need to pay attention to.

That is to say, in the long run, if there were no blood of Jesus Christ, then this principle of retaliation in kind would apply to every single person. The reason we people have not been repaid by God according to our sins is that Jesus Christ has paid the ransom for us. But those who have not believed in Jesus Christ will of course fall under this divine vengeance, because they have sinned against God. So when you look again at the principle of lex talionis from this angle,

you will see a different scene. So I think our vision should be broader. We should not simply take Matthew chapter 5 and use it to oppose this command, as though the two stood in a merely parallel relationship. In fact, that is not the case. Rather, what it tells us is that in Jesus Christ, because of Jesus’ love for us, because of Jesus’ patience toward us, we have received forgiveness. But those others—those who have not kept the law, who have not walked according to God’s will, who have not trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ—they will bear for their sins the cost of God’s vengeance.

This is what the Scripture tells us. So may God lead us to have a more penetrating and broader perspective when we look at the teaching of the whole Bible. May God’s mercy be with us. All right, our sharing today will end simply here. Thank you, everyone.