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;

And behold there went out the son of a woman of Israel, whom she had of an Egyptian, among the children of Israel, and fell at words in the camp with a man of Israel.

And the son of an Israelitish woman but withal the son of an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and this son of the Israelitess and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;

And a son of an Israelitish woman goeth out (and he is son of an Egyptian man), in the midst of the sons of Israel, and strive in the camp do the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel,

And a son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel and had a fight with a man of Israel by the tents;

Then, behold, the son of an Israelite woman, whom she had born of an Egyptian man among the sons of Israel, going out, was quarreling in the camp with a man of Israel.

Egressus est autem filius mulieris Israelitidis, qui erat filius viri AEgyptii, in medio filiorum Israel, et jurgati sunt in castris ipsis filius Israelitidis et vir Israelita.

And the son of an Israelitish woman. In what year, and in what station in the desert this occurred, is uncertain. I have, therefore, thought it advisable to couple together two cases, which are not dissimilar. It is probable that between this instance of punishment, and that which will immediately follow, there was an interval of some time: but the connection of two similar occurrences seemed best to preserve the order of the history; one of the persons referred to having been stoned for profaning God's sacred name by wicked blasphemy, and the other for despising and violating the Sabbath. It is to be observed that the crime of the former of these gave occasion to the promulgation of a law, which we have expounded elsewhere: [1] in accordance with the common proverb, Good laws spring from bad habits: for, after punishment had been inflicted on this blasphemer, Moses ordained that none should insult the name of God with impunity. It was providentially ordered by God that the earliest manifestation of this severity should affect the son of an Egyptian: for, inasmuch as God thus harshly avenged the insult of His name upon the offspring of a foreigner and a heathen, far less excusable was impiety in Israelites, whom God had, as it were, taken up from their mothers' womb, and had brought them up in His own bosom. It is true, indeed, that on his mother's side he had sprung from the chosen people, but, being begotten by an Egyptian father, he could not be properly accounted an Israelite. If, then, there had been any room for the exercise of pardon, a specious reason might have been alleged why forgiveness should be more readily extended to a man of an alien and impure origin. The majesty of God's name, however, was ratified by his death. Hence it follows that it is by no means to be permitted that God's name should be exposed with impunity to blasphemies among the sons of the Church. We may learn from this passage that during their tyrannical oppression many young women married into the Egyptian nation, in order that their affinity might protect their relatives from injuries. It might, however, have been the case that love for his wife attracted the father of this blasphemer into voluntary exile, unless, perhaps, his mother might have been a widow before the departure of the people, so as to be at liberty to take her son with her. To proceed, he is said to have "gone out," not outside the camp, but in public, so that he might be convicted by witnesses; for he would not have been brought to trial if his crime had been secretly committed within the walls of his own house. This circumstance is also worthy of remark, that, although the blasphemy had escaped him in a quarrel, punishment was still inflicted upon him; and assuredly it is a frivolous subterfuge to require that blasphemies should be pardoned on the ground that they have been uttered in anger; for nothing is more intolerable than that our wrath should vent itself upon God, when we are angry with one of our fellow-creatures. Still it is usual, when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked. The verb nqv, nakab, which some render to express, is here rather used for to curse, or to transfix; and the metaphor is an appropriate one, that God's name should be said to be transfixed, when it is insultingly abused.

Footnotes

1 - See [13]vol. 2, p. 431, on Leviticus 24:15, 16.

The son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, etc. - 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 Daniel, 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. The verb נקב nakab, which we translate blaspheme, signifies to pierce, bore, make hollow; also to Express or Distinguish by Name; see Isaiah 62:2; Numbers 1:17; 1-Chronicles 12:31; 1-Chronicles 16:41; 1-Chronicles 28:15; or, as the Persian translator has it, sherah kerd, mir an nam, he expounded or interpreted the name. Hence all that we term blasphemy here may only signify the particularizing some false god, i. e., naming him by his name, or imploring his aid as a helper, and when spoken of the true God it may signify using that sacred name as the idolaters did the names of their idols. On blaspheming God, and the nature of blasphemy, see the notes on Matthew 9:3. In whatever point of view we consider the relation which has been the subject of this long note, one thing is sufficiently plain, that he who speaks irreverently of God, of his works, his perfections, his providence, etc., is destitute of every moral feeling and of every religious principle, and consequently so dangerous to society that it would be criminal to suffer him to be at large, though the longsuffering of God may lead him to repentance, and therefore it may be consistent with mercy to preserve his life.

And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father [was] an Egyptian, went (e) out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;
(e) Meaning, out of his tent.

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 so others in Abendana:
went out among the children of Israel; went out of Egypt with them, according to the Targum of Jonathan, and so was one of the mixed multitude, which came from thence with them, which is not improbable; some say he went out of Moses's court of judicature; but it is more likely that the meaning is, he went out of his tent, so Aben Ezra, into the midst of the camp, to claim his rank and place among the people of Israel; though the Jewish writers, as Jarchi and Aben Ezra, take this phrase, "among the children of Israel", to signify that he was a proselyte, and became a Jew, or had embraced the Jewish religion in all respects:
and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; which man of Israel, according to the Targum of Jonathan, was of the tribe of Daniel, as was the mother of the man he strove with; what they strove about is not easy to say; Aben Ezra suggests, because this stands connected with the above laws, as if this man had said some things in a reviling way about the shewbread, the oil, and the offerings, and so a dispute arose between them, concerning them; but Jarchi says, it was about the business of the camp, and it is more commonly received that this man claimed a place to fix his tent on in the tribe of Daniel, in right of his mother; but the other urged, that the order of fixing tents was according to the genealogies, and with the ensigns of their father's house, and therefore he had no right to rank with them, his father being an Egyptian, and perhaps from words they came to blows, see Exodus 21:22; though the Jewish writers understand it of their contending, at least of its issuing in a judiciary way, before a court of judicature: so it is said, when Israel dwelt in the wilderness, he (the son of the Egyptian) sought to spread his tent in the midst of the tribe of Daniel, and they would not suffer it, because the ranks of the children of Israel were, every man according to his rank, with the ensigns according to the genealogy of their fathers; and they began and contended in the camp, wherefore they went into the court of judicature, the son of the woman of the daughter of Israel, and the man, a son of Israel, who was of the tribe of Daniel (l).
(l) Targum Jonah. in loc.

This offender was the son of an Egyptian father, and an Israelitish mother. The notice of his parents shows the common ill effect of mixed marriages. A standing law for the stoning of blasphemers was made upon this occasion. Great stress is laid upon this law. It extends to the strangers among them, as well as to those born in the land. Strangers, as well as native Israelites, should be entitled to the benefit of the law, so as not to suffer wrong; and should be liable to the penalty of this law, in case they did wrong. If those who profane the name of God escape punishment from men, yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgments. What enmity against God must be in the heart of man, when blasphemies against God proceed out of his mouth. If he that despised Moses' law, died without mercy, of what punishment will they be worthy, who despise and abuse the gospel of the Son of God! Let us watch against anger, do no evil, avoid all connexions with wicked people, and reverence that holy name which sinners blaspheme.

the son of an Israelitish woman, &c.--This passage narrates the enactment of a new law, with a detail of the circumstances which gave rise to it. The "mixed multitude" [Exodus 12:38] that accompanied the Israelites in their exodus from Egypt creates a presumption that marriage connections of the kind described were not infrequent. And it was most natural, in the relative circumstances of the two people, that the father should be an Egyptian and the mother an Israelite.

The account of the Punishment of a Blasphemer is introduced in the midst of the laws, less because "it brings out to view by a clear example the administration of the divine law in Israel, and also introduces and furnishes the reason for several important laws" (Baumgarten), than because the historical occurrence itself took place at the time when the laws relating to sanctification of life before the Lord were given, whilst the punishment denounced against the blasphemer exhibited in a practical form, as a warning to the whole nation, the sanctification of the Lord in the despisers of His name. The circumstances were the following: - The son of an Israelitish woman named Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Daniel, and of an Egyptian whom the Israelitish woman had married, went out into the midst of the children of Israel, i.e., went out of his tent or place of encampment among the Israelites. As the son of an Egyptian, he belonged to the foreigners who had gone out with Israel (Exodus 12:38), and who probably had their tents somewhere apart from those of the Israelites, who were encamped according to their tribes (Numbers 2:2). Having got into a quarrel with an Israelite, this man scoffed at the name (of Jehovah) and cursed. The cause of the quarrel is not given, and cannot be determined. נקב: to bore, hollow out, then to sting, metaphorically to separate, fix (Genesis 30:28), hence to designate (Numbers 1:17, etc.), and to prick in malam partem, to taunt, i.e., to blaspheme, curse, = קבב Numbers 23:11, Numbers 23:25, etc. That the word is used here in a bad sense, is evident from the expression "and cursed," and from the whole context of Leviticus 24:15 and Leviticus 24:16. The Jews, on the other hand, have taken the word נקב in this passage from time immemorial in the sense of ἐπονομάζειν (lxx), and founded upon it the well-known law, against even uttering the name Jehovah (see particularly Leviticus 24:16). "The name" κατ ̓ ἐξ. is the name "Jehovah" (cf. Leviticus 24:16), in which God manifested His nature. It was this passage that gave rise to the custom, so prevalent among the Rabbins, of using the expression "name," or "the name," for Dominus, or Deus (see Buxtorf, lex. talmud. pp. 2432ff.). The blasphemer was brought before Moses and then put into confinement, "to determine for them (such blasphemers) according to the mouth (command) of Jehovah." פּרשׁ: to separate, distinguish, then to determine exactly, which is the sense both here and in Numbers 15:34, where it occurs in a similar connection.

Whose father was an Egyptian - This circumstance seems noted, partly to shew the danger of marriages with persons of wicked principles, and partly by this severity against him who was a stranger by the father, and an Israelite by the mother, to shew that God would not have this sin go unpunished amongst his people, what - soever he was that committed it. Went out - Out of Egypt, being one of that mixed multitude, which came out with the Israelites, Exodus 12:32. It is probable, this was done when the Israelites were near Sinai.