Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 17:8
If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee ] Heb. if a matter be too wonderful (or extraordinary) for thee; cp. Deu 22:11. In Deu 1:17, and Exo 18:22; Exo 18:26 (E), hard translates other Heb. words.
between blood and blood ] i.e. between accidental manslaughter and wilful murder, Deu 4:42, Deu 19:4 f., Deu 19:11 f.; E, Exo 21:12-14.
between plea and plea ] Probably questions of property, as in Exo 22:1 ff., etc.
between stroke and stroke ] Questions of compensation for bodily injuries, such as are defined in E, Exo 21:18 ff.
matters of controversy within thy gates ] Summary of the previous clauses all local cases. See on Deu 12:12, Deu 16:18.
get thee up ] Of resort to the Sanctuary, 1Sa 1:3, etc., Psa 122:4.
the place, etc.] See on Deu 12:5.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
8 13. Of the Judges of Final Appeal
Local cases too hard for the local courts (see Deu 16:18-20, on which this passage immediately follows) are to be taken before the Priests, the Levites at the Sanctuary, and the Judge of the time (Deu 17:8 f.), whose decisions must be strictly obeyed (Deu 17:10 f.); the man who presumptuously refuses to obey shall die (Deu 17:12 f.). Sg. address. The association of a lay judge with the priests is remarkable. Because of this and because he regards Deu 17:8 b and Deu 17:9 a as doublets and Deu 17:10 and Deu 17:11 as another pair of doublets, Steuern. analyses the passage into two originally distinct laws (with editorial additions), one constituting the Priests of the Altar a court of appeal, the other recognising the Judge (i.e. the King) as the final authority. But Deu 17:8 b and Deu 17:9 a are not doublets, and although Deu 17:10 and Deu 17:11 are redundant it is impossible to discriminate in them two distinct sources. More probably the passage is intended to sanction the double practice prevailing in Israel from the earliest times, and during the monarchy, of the discharge of justice by both the priestly and the civil heads of the people. How the authority was divided is nowhere stated except in 2Ch 19:8-11, which attributes to King Jehoshaphat (873 849) the institution of a double court consisting of Levites, priests, and heads of families. Over this the chief priest was set in all the matters of Jehovah, and a prince was set over it in all the King’s matters. But it is uncertain whether the passage merely reflects the procedure of justice in the Chronicler’s own day or is a genuine memory of that which prevailed under the monarchy. See the present writer’s Jerusalem, i. 379 n., 387 f.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The cases in question are such as the inferior judges did not feel able to decide satisfactorily, and which accordingly they remitted to their superiors (compare Exo 18:23-27).
The Supreme court Deu 17:9 is referred to in very general terms as sitting at the sanctuary Deu 17:8. The judge would no doubt usually be a layman, and thus the court would contain both an ecclesiastical and a civil element. Jehoshaphat 2Ch 19:4-11 organized his judicial system very closely upon the lines here laid down.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee] These directions are given to the common magistrates, who might not be able to judge of or apply the law in all cases that might be brought before them. The priests and Levites, who were lawyers by birth and continual practice, were reasonably considered as the best qualified to decide on difficult points.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Too hard for thee; he speaks to the inferior magistrates, who were erected in several cities, as appears by the opposition of these to them at Jerusalem. If, saith he, thou hast not skill or confidence to determine so weighty and difficult a cause.
Between blood and blood, i.e. in capital causes in matter of bloodshed, whether it be wilful or casual murder, whether punishable or pardonable by those laws, Exo 21:13,20,22,28; 22:2; Num 35:11,16,19; Deu 19:4,10.
Between plea and plea; in civil causes or suits between plaintiffs and defendants about words or estates.
Between stroke and stroke, i.e. either first in ceremonial causes,
between plague and plague, between the true leprosy, which is ofttimes called the plague, and the seeming and counterfeit leprosy, which was oft-times hard to determine. And under this, as the most eminent of the kind, may seem to be contained all ceremonial uncleannesses. But this seems not probable,
1. Because the final determination of the matter of leprosy is manifestly left to any particular priest, Le 13 14.
2. Because the person suspected of leprosy was not to be brought to Jerusalem, to be tried there, but was to be shut up in his own city and house, Lev 13:4,5; and the judges at Jerusalem neither could nor would determine his case without once seeing the person.
3. Because the case of leprosy was not hard or difficult, as those causes are said to be, but plain and evident, and so particularly and punctually described, that the priest needed only eyes to decide it. Or rather,
2. In criminal causes, concerning blows or wounds inflicted by one man upon another, and to be requited to him by the sentence of the magistrate according to that law, Exo 21:23-25, wherein there might be many cases of great difficulty and doubt, about which see the annotations there.
Matters of controversy, i.e. such things or matters of blood and pleas and strokes being doubtful, and the magistrates divided in their opinions about it; for if it was a clear case, this was not to be done. Some make this an additional clause to comprehend these and all other things, thus as if he had said, and in general,
any words or matters of strifes or contentions.
1. Which the Lord shall choose, to wit, to set up his worship and tabernacle or temple there; because there was the abode, both of their sanhedrim, or chief council, which was constituted of priests and civil magistrates, who were most able to determine all controversies, and of the high priests, who were to consult God by Urim, Num 27:21, in great matters, which could not be decided otherwise.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8-13. If there arise a matter toohard for thee in judgmentIn all civil or criminal cases, wherethere was any doubt or difficulty in giving a decision, the localmagistrates were to submit them by reference to the tribunal of theSanhedrimthe supreme council, which was composed partly of civiland partly of ecclesiastical persons. “The priests and Levites,”should rather be “the prieststhe Levites”; that is, theLevitical priests, including the high priest, who were members of thelegislative assembly; and who, as forming one body, are called “thejudge.” Their sittings were held in the neighborhood of thesanctuary because in great emergencies the high priest had to consultGod by Urim (Nu 27:21). Fromtheir judgment there was no appeal; and if a person were so perverseand refractory as to refuse obedience to their sentences, hisconduct, as inconsistent with the maintenance of order and goodgovernment, was then to be regarded and punished as a capital crime.
De17:14-20. THE ELECTIONAND DUTY OF A KING.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment,…. This is spoken to inferior judges in cities in the country, who sometimes might have cases too wonderful and mysterious, as the word signifies, or secret and hidden, such as were out of their reach and beyond their capacity, and so be very difficult for them to determine what should be done:
between blood and blood; that is, whether a man is guilty of shedding innocent blood or not; when such a case is depending between a person charged with it and the relatives of the deceased, or between a man slayer and the avenger of blood, and the question is, whether he may have the benefit of a city of refuge or not, and there are some circumstances attending it which make it difficult how to determine:
between plea and plea; of the plaintiff on one side and of the defendant on the other, and both have so much to say in their own cause, that it is hard to decide which is in the right and which is in the wrong, whether in capital or pecuniary cases; it chiefly if not solely respects civil things in controversy:
and between stroke and stroke; blow or wound which one man received from another, and for which he commences a suit of law upon it, Ex 21:18 or for assault and battery; and so Aben Ezra interprets it of blows and bruises; but the Jewish writers generally interpret it of the plague, or stroke of leprosy; so the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem; but the examination of such a case did not belong to the civil magistrate, but to a priest; nor was such a person had up to Jerusalem to be searched, but was shut up in a house until further evidence could be got; and, besides, the signs of the leprosy are so distinctly given, that at waiting a proper time, there was seldom or ever any difficulty about determining it:
[being] matter of controversy within thy gates; or what are matters of controversy about anything else; for the phrase is general, as Aben Ezra observes, and takes in everything in which anything difficult might occur; so Jarchi interprets it of things which the wise men of a city are divided about; one pronounces a person or thing unclean, another clean, one condemning and another justifying, and so far rightly; for this respects not controversies between men, that may be brought into courts of judicature, but controversies or divisions arising in these courts upon them, between the judges themselves, they not agreeing in their opinions:
then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; to Jerusalem, to the great sanhedrim or court of judicature, to which the inferior judges were to apply themselves, in matters of moment and difficulty, for instruction, information, and direction; it being supposed that in such a court such like cases may have been brought before them, and they were expert and understanding in them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Higher Judicial Court at the Place of the Sanctuary. – Just as the judges appointed at Sinai were to bring to Moses whatever cases were too difficult for them to decide, that he might judge them according to the decision of God (Exo 18:26 and Exo 18:19); so in the future the judges of the different towns were to bring all difficult cases, which they were unable to decide, before the Levitical priests and judges at the place of the sanctuary, that a final decision might be given there.
Deu 17:8-9 “ If there is to thee a matter too marvellous for judgment ( with , too wonderful, incomprehensible, or beyond carrying out, Gen 18:14, i.e., too difficult to give a judicial decision upon), between blood and blood, plea and plea, stroke and stroke (i.e., too hard for you to decide according to what legal provisions a fatal blow, or dispute on some civil matter, or a bodily injury, is to be settled), disputes in thy gates (a loosely arranged apposition in this sense, dispute of different kinds, such as shall arise in thy towns); arise, and get thee to the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose; and go to the Levitical priest and the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire.” Israel is addressed here as a nation, but the words are not to be supposed to be directed “first of all to the local courts (Deu 16:18), and lastly to the contending parties” ( Knobel), nor “directly to the parties to the suit” ( Schultz), but simply to the persons whose duty it was to administer justice in the nation, i.e., to the regular judges in the different towns and districts of the land. This is evident from the general fact, that the Mosaic law never recognises any appeal to higher courts by the different parties to a lawsuit, and that in this case also it is not assumed, since all that is enjoined is, that if the matter should be too difficult for the local judges to decide, they themselves were to carry it to the superior court. As Oehler has quite correctly observed in Herzog’s Cyclopaedia, “this superior court was not a court of appeal; for it did not adjudicate after the local court had already given a verdict, but in cases in which the latter would not trust itself to give a verdict at all.” And this is more especially evident from what is stated in Deu 17:10, with regard to the decisions of the superior court, namely, that they were to do whatever the superior judges taught, without deviating to the right hand or to the left. This is unquestionably far more applicable to the judges of the different towns, who were to carry out exactly the sentence of the higher tribunal, than to the parties to the suit, inasmuch as the latter, at all events those who were condemned for blood (i.e., for murder), could not possibly be in a position to alter the decision of the court at pleasure, since it did not rest with them, but with the authorities of their town, to carry out the sentence.
Moses did not directly institute a superior tribunal at the place of the sanctuary on this occasion, but rather assumed its existence; not however its existence at that time (as Riehm and other modern critics suppose), but its establishment and existence in the future. Just as he gives no minute directions concerning the organization of the different local courts, but leaves this to the natural development of the judicial institutions already in existence, so he also restricts himself, so far as the higher court is concerned, to general allusions, which might serve as a guide to the national rulers of a future day, to organize it according to the existing models. He had no disorganized mob before him, but a well-ordered nation, already in possession of civil institutions, with fruitful germs for further expansion and organization. In addition to its civil classification into tribes, families, fathers’ houses, and family groups, which possessed at once their rulers in their own heads, the nation had received in the priesthood, with the high priest at the head, and the Levites as their assistants, a spiritual class, which mediated between the congregation and the Lord, and not only kept up the knowledge of right in the people as the guardian of the law, but by virtue of the high priest’s office was able to lay the rights of the people before God, and in difficult cases could ask for His decision. Moreover, a leader had already been appointed for the nation, for the time immediately succeeding Moses’ death; and in this nomination of Joshua, a pledge had been given that the Lord would never leave it without a supreme ruler of its civil affairs, but, along with the high priest, would also appoint a judge at the place of the central sanctuary, who would administer justice in the highest court in association with the priests. On the ground of these facts, sit was enough for the future to mention the Levitical priests and the judge who would be at the place of the sanctuary, as constituting the court by which the difficult questions were to be decided.
(Note: The simple fact, that the judicial court at the place of the national sanctuary is described in such general terms, furnishes a convincing proof that we have here the words of Moses, and not those of some later prophetic writer who had copied the superior court at Jerusalem of the times of the kings, as Riehm and the critics assume.)
For instance, the words themselves show distinctly enough, that by “the judge” we are not to understand the high priest, but the temporal judge or president of the superior court; and it is evident from the singular, “ the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord ” (Deu 17:12), that the high priest is included among the priests. The expression “ the priests the Levites ” (Levitical priests), which also occurs in Deu 17:18; Deu 18:1; Deu 21:5; Deu 24:8; Deu 27:9; Deu 31:9, instead of “sons of Aaron,” which we find in the middle books, is quite in harmony with the time and character of the book before us. As long as Aaron was living with his sons, the priesthood consisted only of himself and his sons, that is to say, of one family. Hence all the instructions in the middle books are addressed to them, and for the most part to Aaron personally (vid., Ex 28 and 29; Lev 8-10; Num 18:1, etc.). This as all changed when Aaron died; henceforth the priesthood consisted simply of the descendants of Aaron and his sons, who were no longer one family, but formed a distinct class in the nation, the legitimacy of which arose from its connection with the tribe of Levi, to which Aaron himself had belonged. It was evidently more appropriate, therefore, to describe them as sons of Levi than as sons of Aaron, which had been the title formerly given to the priests, with the exception of the high priest, viz., Aaron himself. – In connection with the superior court, however, the priests are introduced rather as knowing and teaching the law (Lev 10:11), than as actual judges. For this reason appeal was to be made not only to them, but also to the judge, whose duty it was in any case to make the judicial inquiry and pronounce the sentence. – The object of the verb “ inquire ” (Deu 17:9) follows after “they shall show thee,” viz., “ the word of right,” the judicial sentence which is sought (2Ch 19:6).
Deu 17:10-11 They shall do “ according to the sound of the word which they utter ” (follow their decision exactly), and that “ according to the sound of the law which they teach,” and “ according to the right which they shall speak.” The sentence was to be founded upon the Thorah, upon the law which the priests had to teach.
Deu 17:12-13 No one was to resist in pride, to refuse to listen to the priest or to the judge. Resistance to the priest took place when any one was dissatisfied with his interpretation of the law; to the judge, when any one was discontented with the sentence that was passed on the basis of the law. Such refractory conduct was to be punished with death, as rebellion against God, in whose name the right had been spoken (Deu 1:17). (On Deu 17:13, see Deu 13:12.)
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Authority of the Judges. | B. C. 1451. |
8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; 9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment: 10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: 11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
Courts of judgment were ordered to be erected in every city (ch. xvi. 18), and they were empowered to hear and determine causes according to law, both those which we call pleas of the crown and those between party and party; and we may suppose that ordinarily they ended the matters that were brought before them, and their sentence was definitive; but, 1. It is here taken for granted that sometimes a case might come into their court too difficult for those inferior judges to determine, who could not be thought to be so learned in the laws as those that presided in the higher courts; so that (to speak in the language of our law) they must find a special verdict, and take time to advise before the giving of judgment (v. 8): If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, which it would be no dishonour to the judges to own the difficulty of,–suppose it between blood and blood, the blood of a person which cried and the blood of him that was charged with the murder which was demanded, when it was doubtful upon the evidence whether it was wilful or casual,–or between plea and plea, the plea (that is, the bill or declaration) of the plaintiff and the plea of the defendant,–or between stroke and stroke, in actions of assault and battery; in these and similar cases, thought the evidence were plain, yet doubts might arise about the sense and meaning of the law and the application of it to the particular case. 2. These difficult cases, which hitherto had been brought to Moses, according to Jethro’s advice, were, after his death, to be brought to the supreme power, wherever it was lodged, whether in a judge (when there was such an extraordinary person raised up and qualified for that great service, as Othniel, Deborah, Gideon, c.) or in the high-priest (when he was by the eminency of his gifts called of God to preside in public affairs, as Eli), or, if no single person were marked by heaven for this honour, then in the priests and Levites (or in the priests, who were Levites of course), who not only attended the sanctuary, but met in council to receive appeals from the inferior courts, who might reasonably be supposed, not only to be best qualified by their learning and experience, but to have the best assistance of the divine Spirit for the deciding of doubts, Deu 17:9Deu 17:11; Deu 17:12. They are not appointed to consult the urim and thummim, for it is supposed that these were to be consulted only in cases relating to the public, either the body of the people or the prince; but in ordinary cases the wisdom and integrity of those that sat at the stern must be relied on, their judgment had not the divine authority of an oracle, yet besides the moral certainty it had, as the judgment of knowing, prudent, and experienced men, it had the advantage of a divine promise, implied in those words (v. 9), They shall show thee the sentence of judgment; it had also the support of a divine institution, by which they were made the supreme judicature of the nation. 3. The definitive sentence given by the judge, priest, or great council, must be obeyed by the parties concerned, upon pain of death: Thou shalt do according to their sentence (v. 10); thou shalt observe to do it, thou shalt not decline from it (v. 11), to the right hand nor to the left. Note, It is for the honour of God and the welfare of a people that the authority of the higher power be supported and the due order of government observed, that those be obeyed who are appointed to rule, and that every soul be subject to them in all those things that fall within their commission. Though the party thought himself injured by the sentence (as every man is apt to be partial in is own cause), yet he must needs be subject, must stand to the award, how unpleasing soever, and bear, or lose, or pay, according to it, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. But if an inferior judge contradict the sentence of the higher court and will not execute the orders of it, or a private person refuse to conform to their sentence, the contumacy must be punished with death, though the matter were ever so small in which the opposition was made: That man shall die, and all the people shall hear and fear,Deu 17:12; Deu 17:13. See here, (1.) The evil of disobedience. Rebellion and stubbornness, from a spirit of contradiction and opposition of God, or those in authority under him, from a principle of contempt and self-willedness, are as witchcraft and idolatry. To differ in opinion from weakness and infirmity may be excused and must be borne with; but to do so presumptuously, in pride and wickedness (as the ancient translations explain it), this is to take up arms against the government, and is an affront to him by whom the powers that be are ordained. (2.) The design of punishment: that others may hear and fear, and not do the like. Some would be so considerate as to infer the heinousness of the offence from the grievousness of the penalty, and therefore would detest it; and others would so far consult their own safety as to cross their humours by conforming to the sentence rather than to sin against their own heads, and forfeit their lives by going contrary to it. From this law the apostle infers the greatness of the punishment of which those will be thought worthy that trample on the authority of the Son of God, Heb 10:28; Heb 10:29.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 8-13:
This text gives the provision Israel was to follow when Moses would no longer be with them to render judgment. Some legal cases might prove to be too difficult to be settled by the ordinary rules of the judicial system:
(1) “Between blood and blood,” in cases where there was bloodshed, and one was killed, either deliberately or accidentally, see Exo 21:12-14; Num 35:9-25.
(2) “Between plea and plea,” disputes concerning rights and claims, see 2Ch 19:10.
(3) “Between stroke and stroke,” cases of bodily injury, whether it be in strife between two parties, or in cases of assault, Exo 21:18-25.
“Matters of controversy,” disputes over what might be legally right and just. All such matters which could not be resolved in the local community should be brought before the priests in the place which Jehovah appointed. This was the “court of appeals.” The implication is that the high priest was to be the presiding judge. Counsel would be given from among the body of the priests. In any case, their judgment was final. All parties to the legal dispute, of whatever kind the dispute might be, must accept and abide by the decisions of this court.
Any person who refused to accept the decision of the priests was considered to be acting presumptuously against Jehovah Himself, and the penalty was death, likely by stoning.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee. The principal office of the priests is here described under a single head, viz., that they should declare what was right in doubtful and obscure matters out of the Law of God; for although God seems only to refer to civil controversies, yet there is no doubt but that by synecdoche He appoints them to be interpreters of the doctrine of the Law. That their authority might be more reverenced in general, He commands the people to acquiesce in their judgment even on the most disagreeable points: for if their sentence is to be submitted to where a man’s life is in question, or when any disputes are to be settled, much more is all exception taken away with respect to God’s worship and spiritual doctrine. I confess that the priests are not the sole judges here appointed, but that others of the people are associated with them as colleagues, yet the dignity of the priesthood is especially exalted. The opinion which some hold, that the high priest alone is intended by the word judge, is easily refuted; because Moses distinctly enumerates the priests, the Levites, and the judge. But it is probable that there is by enallage a change of number in it; for it appears from the sacred history that several were appointed, where Jehoshaphat is related to have chosen “of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel” to preside at Jerusalem in judgment. (2Ch 19:8.) Assuredly the pious king would have been unwilling to depart in the very least degree from the rule of the Law, and his zeal is praised by the Holy Spirit Himself: but this was the arrangement made, as appears a little further on, that the high priest held the primacy “in matters of the Lord,” and the king’s governor attended to civil causes and earthly affairs. And thus again is confirmed what I have lately adverted to, i.e., that the office of teaching was entrusted to the priests, that they might solve any difficult questions, which is also supported by the words of Jehoshaphat, when he says, “And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren — between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the Lord.” (2Ch 19:10.)
Certainly, as the cognisance of capital crimes properly belonged to judges of the other tribes, so determinations as to precepts and statutes, and the interpretation of the whole Law, was the peculiar province of the priests; nor can we doubt but that the words of Malachi, (Mal 2:7,) “the priests’ lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts,” were taken from this passage. Now, to come to the sum of this, God appoints the seat of judgment to be at the sanctuary; for, although in the first verse He seems to nominate the priests and judges indiscriminately to the decision of earthly quarrels, yet in the fourth verse from this He sufficiently shews that another province is committed to the priests, i.e., to keep the people in sound and pure doctrine, and to expound what is right — in a word, to be the teachers of the Church. But, although the people were to assent to whatever they should decide, so that it would be sinful for them to decline from it to the right hand or the left, yet a tyrannical power was not thus put into their hands, as if, when they had arbitrarily changed light into darkness, their perverted decisions were to be deemed oracular. Their interpretation was to be received without appeal; yet, on the other hand, this rule was prescribed to them, that they should speak as from the mouth of God. It is true that the word here used is, תורה, (206) thorah; which, although it means teaching, yet undoubtedly signifies that teaching which is comprised in the Law, nay, it is equivalent to the word law. And of this Jehoshaphat is a faithful interpreter, when he enumerates the divisions, of which Scripture everywhere shews the Law of Moses to consist. Although פי, phi, taken metaphorically, is equivalent in Hebrew to discourse, yet it here emphatically expresses the sentence which shall be taken from the pure teaching of the Law. The children of Israel, therefore, are commanded to do what the priests shall have taught them; but how? according to the sentence taken from the Law. Nor can it be doubted but that God at the same time furnished those, whom He desired to exalt to such a high dignity, with the spirit of understanding and rectitude, that they might not deliver any improper sentence. And this also is conveyed by the promise, “They shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:” since it would have been absurd that the people should have obeyed God in vain, and to their own destruction. Since now one sole Priest, who is also our Master, even Christ, is set over us, wo be unto us if we do not simply submit ourselves to His word, and are not ready to obey Him, with all the modesty and teachableness that becomes us.
(206) על-פי תורה, Deu 27:11. “According to the sentence of the law,” A. V. The noun תורה is avowedly formed from the verb, ירה whose most ordinary meaning in Hiphil is to teach. Hence the noun in its primary meaning signifies teaching. פי is the mouth, and hence the voice, which proceeds from it. על-פי according to the word, or declaration. —. W.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Deu. 17:8-20. THE SUPREMACY IN ISRAEL OF THE WRITTEN LAW OF GOD.
(8) If there arise a matter too hard for thee.Literally, too wonderful.
Between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke.The blood and the plea seem to indicate criminal and civil cases. The word stroke is the common word for plague in the Pentateuch and elsewhere. It may possibly refer to cases of ceremonial purity or impurity, especially in reference to disease. There is an evident allusion to this law in the history of King Jehoshaphat (2Ch. 19:8-10). There the words are between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments. The questions are (1) between two contending parties; (2) between the law as a general rule and its application to particular duties, institutions and requirements. Other passages in the same chapter recall Deu. 16:18-20.
Matters of controversy within thy gatesi.e., in the local courts of their several cities. The gate was the place of judgment. In 2Ch. 19:10, the phrase is more clearly expressed, thus, what cause soever shall come unto you of your brethren that dwell in their cities.
Into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose.This implies what was afterwards ordered before Moses death, that the standard copy of the Law would be kept beside the Ark of the Covenant, in the sacred place (Deu. 31:26).
(9) Thou shalt come unto the priests the Levitesi.e., the priests that come of the tribe of Levi (Rashi). Some modern critics say the writer of Deuteronomy knew no distinction between priests and Levites; but see above on Deu. 11:6, and also the notes on Deu. 31:9; Deu. 31:25.
The priests, the Levites, and . . . the judge.The order agrees exactly with the constitution which Moses left behind him at his death. This has been already indicated in Num. 27:15-21. Joshua was to stand before Eleazar. Eleazar was to ask counsel from Jehovah, and at his word Joshua and all the people were to go in and out. The order, when the two are mentioned together in the Book of Joshua, is invariably Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun, not vice vers. The priests are the custodians of the Law; the judge or chief magistrate is the executor of it. (Comp. Mal. 2:7-8.) The principle is not altered by the substitution of a king for the judge, or by the addition of a prophet.
That shall be in those days.Rashi and the New Testament are curiously agreed in the application of this part of the commandment. Our Lord, in Mat. 23:2-3, says of the Scribes and Pharisees (the judges of His day) that they sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. Rashi says here, Although he is not like the rest of the judges that were before him, thou must hearken to him. There is no judge for thee except the judge that is in thy days.
(9-11) And they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment . . . According to the sentence of the law . . . thou shalt do.This passage should be carefully noted. The function of the priest and judge was to show, inform, teach, and tell the applicant the sentence of the law, i.e., of the written law. The four English verbs have only three equivalents in Hebrew, viz., tell, teach and say. It is not sufficiently observed that this defines the relation between the Church and the Bible from the time the Law (which was the germ of the Bible) was delivered to the Church, and that the relation between the Church and the Bible is the same to this day. The only authority wherewith the Church (of Israel, or of Christ) can bind or loose, is the written Law of God. The binding (or forbidding) and loosing (or permitting) of the Rabbisthe authority which our Lord committed to His Churchwas only the application of His written word. The Rabbis acknowledge this from one end of the Talmud to the other by the appeal to Scripture which is made in every page, sometimes in almost every line. The application is often strained or fanciful; but that does not alter the principle. The written word is the chain that binds. Nor does the varying relation between the executive and legislative authority alter the principle. Where the law of Jehovah is the law of the land, death may be the penalty of disobedience. Where it is only the law of the Christian community, exclusion may be the extreme penalty that is possible. But still the relation between the written word and the ministers of the Church is the same. The Church is the witness and keeper of Holy Writ, and can only shew from thence the sentence of judgment. The sentence is an application of the law, not a mere invention of the authorities themselves; and it would be easy to show from history how every misapplication of the Divine code brought with it surely, sooner or later, its own refutation, and the overthrow of the unfaithful government. The prophets not seldom took the place of tribunes of the people in cases of oppression. No one lifted up a more distinct protest from the law itself against the misapplication of the law than the Prophet like unto Moses, who formally acknowledged the authority of them that sat in Moses seat.[3]
[3] Manifestly, when copies of the Law were scarce, and when a good deal of it, like this Book of Deuteronomy, was general, and even prophetic, a board of authorised interpreters, or appliers, of the law to matters of detail was an absolute necessity. (See Introduction to Deuteronomy for more on this head.)
(12) And the man that will do presumptuously . . . shall die.This word presumptuously occurs for the first time in this place. (See also Deu. 18:22.) It is connected with pride, and denotes a proud self-assertion against the law. The penalty of death arises necessarily out of the theocracy. If God is the king of the nation, rebellion against His law is treason, and if it be proud and wilful rebellion, the penalty of death is only what we should expect to see inflicted. As soon as the law of Jehovah is in any way separated from the law of the land, this state of things may be altered. It is remarkable that in Ezras commission from Artaxerxes we find permission to identify the law of Jehovah with the law of the Persian empire to the full extent of this precept, Whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, banishment, confiscation of goods, or imprisonment (Ezr. 7:25-26.) But such penalties, except in a theocratic government, are obviously out of place in matters connected with religion.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee The meaning evidently is this: In cases where it is difficult to decide, as to a fatal blow or in disputes about civil matters, or in cases of bodily injury, the subject must be referred for adjudication to this high judicial court. The judges appointed at Sinai were to bring to Moses such cases as they found it impossible to decide.
So after the people became settled in the land there was to be a place for the final adjudication of difficult cases. This was not an appeal from the parties involved, but a referring of the matter by the local judges.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Place Of Final Appeal ( Deu 17:8-15 ).
But if a case was brought which was too hard for the local justices to decide, there was to be a final place of appeal made up of the levitical priests and the chief judge of the day (Deu 17:9). Their decision would be final. We can compare this with how Moses was the final court of appeal while he was still over the people (Deu 1:17 b).
Analysis in the words of Moses:
a If there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within your gates (Deu 17:8 a).
b Then shall you arise, and get yourself up to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose (Deu 17:8 b).
c And you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge that shall be in those days, and you shall enquire, and they will show you the sentence of judgment, and you shall do according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall show you from that place which Yahweh shall choose (Deu 17:9-10 a).
c And you shall observe to do according to all that they shall teach you, according to the tenor of the law which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall show you, to the right hand, nor to the left (Deu 17:10-11).
b And the man who does presumptuously, in not listening to the priest who stands to minister there before Yahweh your God, or to the judge (Deu 17:12 a).
a Even that man shall die, and you shall put away the evil from Israel, and all the people shall hear, and fear, and no more act presumptuously (Deu 17:12-13).
This is more progressive than chiasmus. But in ‘a’ the method of judgment for difficult cases is laid out, and in the parallel the warning given that not to accept the verdict of that court (the court being seen to be fair) will mean being put to death so that all may fear and give due respect to the court which meets before Yahweh. For to dispute the sacred court is doing evil in Israel by encouraging anarchy. In ‘b’ they arise and go to the place which Yahweh their God chooses and in the parallel they are to heed the ones who minister there before Yahweh their God. In ‘c’ they enquire and receive the verdict and are to do according to the tenor of the sentence, and in the parallel they must receive the sentence which has been according to the tenor of Yahweh’s Instruction and not divert from it.
Deu 17:8-11
‘ If there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within your gates, then shall you arise, and get yourself up to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, and you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge that shall be in those days, and you shall enquire, and they will show you the sentence of judgment, and you shall do according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall show you from that place which Yahweh shall choose, and you shall observe to do according to all that they shall teach you, according to the tenor of the law which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall show you, to the right hand, nor to the left.’
If any case proved too hard for the local elders to judge, whether it be a question of differentiation between murder and other forms of manslaughter, or between the approach to be taken on one type of plea as against another, or between grievous bodily harm and lesser violence, with the case producing differing views among the elders as they judged the matter within the gate. Then they must rise up and take the details of the case to the Central Sanctuary, to the place where Yahweh was pleased to dwell. They must come to the levitical priests and the judge of that day, and enquire there as to what to do.
This is the first mention in Deuteronomy of the levitical priests (‘the priests the Levites’) under that title. The phrase is found regularly in Deuteronomy (Deu 17:9; Deu 17:18; Deu 18:1; Deu 24:8; Deu 27:9) in contrast with ‘the Levite(s)’ (Deu 12:12; Deu 12:18-19; Deu 14:27; Deu 14:29; Deu 16:11; Deu 16:14; Deu 18:7; Deu 26:11-13; Deu 27:14; Deu 31:25) and is used regularly by others who certainly separate between priests and Levites (2Ch 23:18; 2Ch 30:27; Eze 43:19; Eze 44:15; Eze 48:13). It is also found in Jer 33:18; Jos 3:3; Jos 8:33. For further consideration see discussion at Deu 18:1-6.
“The judge that shall be in those days.” This would suggest that Israel might have someone who could act as supreme judge, a recognised individual of unique status, to have a say in such cases, or possibly a small group of such recognised judges acting in turn. He/they possibly also had general jurisdiction over the people. Moses may have been thinking of the one who would replace him, and the ones who would follow after, for as the recognised head of Israel he had been responsible for judging (Exo 18:13) as well as exercising authority over the people. We can compare here the term ‘judge’, as used in the book of Judges, of people who ruled over ‘Israel’.
“And you shall do according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall show you from that place which Yahweh shall choose, and you shall observe to do according to all that they shall teach you, according to the tenor of the law which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall show you, to the right hand, nor to the left.” Whatever decision or sentence was passed by this body at the place where Yahweh had chosen to dwell they must observe to do. This would be the place of final appeal. This would apply whether the matter was one of interpreting teaching or of passing judgment. Once decided there was to be no avoiding it, and no seeking to give it different meanings. It was in fact important that once a final decision had been reached the matter was seen as closed.
This was, of course, on the basis that they were revealing themselves to be reliable judges by following Moses’ requirements for them. They were required to demonstrate how their decision was in accordance with God’s Instruction (Torah). Once they became patently dishonest the prophets attacked them openly. But the people were still required to carry out their decisions (compare Jesus verdict on the Pharisees – Mat 23:3).
Comparing this and Deu 16:18-20 with the reign of Jehoshaphat (‘Yahweh has judged’) it seems that Jehoshaphat followed the pattern laid down here (2 Chronicles 19). Jehoshaphat appointed judges up and down the land, and established a supreme court in Jerusalem headed by ‘Levites, priests and the heads of the families of Israel for the judgment of Yahweh and for controversies’ (2Ch 19:8).
Deu 17:12
‘ And the man who does presumptuously, in not listening to the priest who stands to minister there before Yahweh your God, or to the judge, even that man shall die, and you shall put away the evil from Israel.’
Anyone who openly rejected the final verdict of the court pronounced by the Judge and ‘the Priest’, the court having consisted of ‘the judge’ and the priests, whether it be the accused or the justices, was to be put to death, for it would be to attack the very authority on which justice was based. It would be to act evilly against the highest religious and civil authorities acting together. For the point was that ‘the Priest’ ministered before Yahweh, and was therefore appointed to act in His name, while the Judge was appointed over the people. But there would be no distinction between cases. All would be seen as covenant law.
Deu 17:13
‘ And all the people shall hear, and fear, and no more act presumptuously.’
The result of the death sentence on anyone who openly attacked the decision of the final court of appeal, whether the accused or the justices, would be that all Israel would hear about it, and fear, and not act presumptuously in the same way.
The purpose of the death sentence was, of course, to dissuade anyone from taking up such a position, thus establishing the final authority of the court. The hope was that it would never need to be carried out.
We learn from all this the importance of the establishment of true justice, and that in the end that must be found in conformity to His word and to His Law.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Difficult Questions to be Decided by the Priest
v. 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, v. 9. and thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, v. 10. and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee, v. 11. according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do, v. 12. And the man that will do presumptuously, v. 13. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Ver. 8, 9. If there arise a matter too hard for thee, &c. Moses now returns to speak of the courts of judgment, which he had ordered to be erected in all their cities when they came into the land of Canaan, chap. Deu 16:18. These words, therefore, are to be considered as directed to the ordinary judges, who were appointed in every city. The particular number of them seems to have been left to discretion, though we are told, that in later times it was fixed to three in lesser towns, and twenty-three in greater: from these judges there seldom lay an appeal, except in such cases as are here specified. See Lowman’s Dissert. chap. 5: Between blood and blood is interpreted by many, of questions respecting bloodshed; whether, for instance, it was wilful, or casual only. Others, however, imagine it to signify contentions which arise from the degrees of consanguinity. Between plea and plea signifies civil causes only. Between stroke and stroke, say some, refers to cases of wounds or strokes inflicted by one man upon another: the Vulgate, however, and other versions, understand it of the leprosy; an interpretation which Houbigant follows, and very strongly contends for. Le Clerc’s argument against this sense is, that the cognizance of the leprosy did not belong to the ordinary judges, of whom Moses is here speaking, but to the priests: an argument, says Houbigant, easily refuted; for the priests did not only live where the tabernacle or temple was, but in many cities of the tribes, in which it may be proved, from the 12th verse, they exercised the judicial part of religion. The law itself seems to shew the same thing, which refers the more difficult causes, some to the priests who minister to the Lord, others to the judge who shall then be; i.e. the civil causes were referred to the judge; the religious ones to the priests. The disjunctive particle or, in the 12th verse, proves this. Nothing hinders us, therefore, from understanding negang, rendered stroke, of the leprosy; of which if the priests of particular cities were not able to judge, reference was to be made to the high-priest. In the 9th verse we should read, thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, or unto the judge: thus understanding the passage with Houbigant, we see a very evident and sufficient reason, why the religious as well as civil magistrate is mentioned. By the priests the Levites is generally understood the supreme court of the nation, the Sanhedrin. Though the priests were not the only persons of whom this high court consisted, yet they are here first mentioned, because they were likely to be the most capable persons to exercise this authority; and, being best qualified, the Sanhedrin was chiefly made up of them. By judge, those supreme judges of the nation are understood, whom God raised up when the Israelites were oppressed by their enemies; such as Gideon, Jephthah, Samuel, &c. Such judges were by their office invested with the highest power, civil as well as military; for, to judge Israel, was to administer justice, as well as to command armies. Moses intimates, ver. 14 that the Hebrew commonwealth was to retain after his death the same form as it had now he was alive: for he himself was the supreme judge, or administrator of justice, to whom the more difficult causes were to be referred; chap. Deu 1:17. So Joshua was judge after Him, and many others.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The apostle Paul from the case of the presumptuous man here noticed, takes occasion to draw a very striking inference in his Epistle to the Hebrews, in those who tread underfoot the SON of GOD, and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and are guilty of doing despite to the SPIRIT of grace. When the law is thus spiritualized and explained by the gospel, and the apostle’s authority in this instance certainly justifies its being done, it is very sweet and delightful. See Heb 10:28-29 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Deu 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
Ver. 10. According to all that they inform thee, ] viz., Agreeable to the sentence of the law. Deu 17:11 The Jews from this text foolishly seek footing for their traditions, which they so much magnify. Mat 15:1-2
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 17:8-13
8If any case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, being cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. 9So you shall come to the Levitical priest or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict in the case. 10You shall do according to the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the LORD chooses; and you shall be careful to observe according to all that they teach you. 11According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. 12The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the LORD your God, nor to the judge, that man shall die; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel. 13Then all the people will hear and be afraid, and will not act presumptuously again.
Deu 17:8 The very difficult (BDB 810, KB 927, Niphal IMPERFECT) cases were to be referred to the priests at the central sanctuary (cf. Deu 12:5; Deu 12:11; Deu 12:13).
These types of judicial difficulties are described as:
1. blood to blood (BDB 196), meaning homicide
2. judgment to judgment (BDB 192)
a. NRSV, one kind of legal right and another
b. TEV, certain cases of property rights
c. NJB, conflicting claims
d. REB, civil rights
e. JPSOA, civil law
f. NET Bible, legal claim
g. NIV, lawsuits
3. stroke to stroke (BDB 619), meaning some kind of assault (cf. Deu 21:5)
The Jewish Study Bible, p. 405, asserts that the difficult cases involved a lack of evidence. By referring these to the priests at the central sanctuary, Moses is assuming that divine insight will determine the guilt or innocence of the parties involved.
the place which the LORD your God chooses This verb (BDB 103, KB 119) is used in Deuteronomy for several things:
1. YHWH’s choice of Israel’s forefathers, Deu 4:37
2. YHWH’s choice of Israel, Deu 7:6-7; Deu 10:15; Deu 14:2
3. YHWH’s choice of the place of a central sanctuary, Deu 12:5; Deu 12:11; Deu 12:14; Deu 12:18; Deu 12:21; Deu 12:26; Deu 14:23-25; Deu 15:20; Deu 16:2; Deu 16:6-7; Deu 16:11; Deu 16:15-16; Deu 17:8; Deu 17:10; Deu 18:6; Deu 26:2; Deu 31:11
4. YHWH’s choice of a king, Deu 17:15
5. YHWH’s choice of an Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood, Deu 18:5; Deu 21:5
Deu 17:9 the Levitical priest The Masoretic Text (Hebrew), the Septuagint (Greek), and the Peshitta (Aramaic) have the plural, priests. This indicates a pool or guild of priests (cf. Deu 19:17). This was the rabbinical proof text for the Sanhedrin (set up by Ezra).
the judge The Masoretic Text has the singular. This refers to a single judge (cf. 2Ch 19:11 for historical example of this) or leader of a group of judges.
Deu 17:9-12 Israel is to be respectful and obedient to judicial discussions because they reflect the authority of YHWH. Notice the VERBS used:
1. declare – BDB 616, KB 665
a. Deu 17:9, Hiphil PERFECT
b. Deu 17:10, Hiphil IMPERFECT
c. Deu 17:11, Hiphil IMPERFECT
2. do – BDB 793, KB 889
a. Deu 17:10, Qal PERFECT
b. Deu 17:10, Qal INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT
c. Deu 17:11, Qal IMPERFECT
d. Deu 17:12, Qal IMPERFECT
3. teach – BDB 434, KB 436
a. Deu 17:10, Hiphil IMPERFECT
b. Deu 17:11, Hiphil IMPERFECT
4. not listening – BDB 1033, KB 1570, Qal INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT
Deu 17:11 you shall not turn aside from the word. . .to the right or the left This is a Hebrew idiom for not changing the verdict and punishment handed down by the Levitical judges. A similar metaphor is used of YHWH’s words in Deu 4:2; Deu 12:32. Once YHWH’s will is known, turning right or left means disobedience (cf. Deu 5:32; Deu 17:20; Deu 28:14; Jos 1:7; Jos 23:6; 2Ki 22:2; Pro 4:27).
Deu 17:12 presumptuously This term (BDB 268) is used of wilful disobedience (cf. Deu 1:43; Deu 17:12-13; Deu 18:20; Deu 18:22). The judge and priest were representatives of YHWH’s authority. Therefore, to reject their decisions was to reject YHWH! In Deu 18:20-22, it is prophets who do not know YHWH speaking in His name, using His authority!
the priest who stand there to serve the LORD This is a metaphor for a Levitical priest.
NASB, NRSVyou shall purge the evil from Israel
NKJVyou shall put away the evil person from Israel
TEVyou will remove this evil from Israel
NJBYou must banish this evil from Israel
The VERB (BDB 128, KB 145, Piel PERFECT) means to burn or consume (cf. Num 11:3). Here it is used metaphorically as in Deu 13:5; Deu 17:7; Deu 17:12; Deu 19:13; Deu 19:19; Deu 21:21.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
between. Some codices, with Samaritan Pentateuch, The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel Septuagint, and Syriac, read “or between”.
stroke = punishment. Figure of speech Synecdoche (of Species), App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
arise: Deu 1:17, Exo 18:26, 1Ki 3:16-28, 2Ch 19:8-10, Hag 2:11, Mal 2:7
between blood: Deu 19:4, Deu 19:10, Deu 19:11, Exo 21:12-14, Exo 21:20, Exo 21:22, Exo 21:28, Exo 22:2, Num 35:11, Num 35:16, 19-34
get thee up: Deu 12:5, Deu 19:17, Psa 122:4, Psa 122:5
Reciprocal: Gen 37:26 – conceal Exo 18:16 – a matter Exo 18:22 – great Lev 13:2 – he shall Num 27:2 – General Deu 12:11 – a place Deu 21:5 – by their word Deu 25:1 – General Jdg 4:5 – came up 1Sa 2:25 – sin against 1Ch 23:4 – officers and judges 2Ch 19:10 – between blood Neh 11:1 – the rulers Job 29:16 – the cause Eze 44:24 – in controversy Zec 3:7 – judge Luk 20:9 – husbandmen Joh 7:51 – General Act 19:38 – have
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Deu 17:8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee These words are to be considered as addressed to the ordinary judges, or inferior magistrates, who were appointed in every city. Between blood and blood That is, in capital causes, whether a man hath committed wilful or casual murder. Between plea and plea In civil causes, about words or estates, when the question is, whose cause or plea is the better? Between stroke and stroke In criminal causes; in the case of wounds or blows inflicted by one man upon another, of which see Exo 21:20. Being matters of controversy That is, such things being doubtful, and the magistrates being divided in their opinions about them. Thou shalt get thee unto the place which the Lord shall choose Namely, to set up his tabernacle or temple there; because there was the abode, both of their sanhedrim, which was constituted of priests and civil magistrates, and of the high-priests, who were to consult God, by Urim, in matters which could not be decided otherwise.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Deu 17:8-13. A central tribunal to be established (at Jerusalem) to try cases too hard for the local courts (Deu 16:18-20); see Deu 1:9-18*.
Deu 17:8. Two (three?) sample cases are mentioned, viz. trials for murder (see Exo 21:18) and for personal injury.between plea and plea: probably a dittograph (cf. Heb.) If genuine, the reference will be to disputes about property, one putting his right or claim against anothers (see Exo 22:1 f.).
Deu 17:9. In primitive times sanctuaries were asylums and courts of justice (Deu 19:1-13*), the priests acting as magistrates. Here they seem to act as assessors (Deu 16:18 ff.*).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Deu 17:2 through 7 explain a specific example of how the judges were to deal with a particular type of case. In these verses we see the legal procedure they were to follow in general.
When the priests would set up the tabernacle in the land, the nation was to establish a supreme court to provide judgment in cases too difficult for the local judges. The location of this legal center may have been at the tabernacle [Note: Craigie, The Book . . ., p. 252] , or it may have been at some other place. [Note: Merrill, Deuteronomy, pp. 261-62; I. Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, pp. 163-64.] Kline believed it was at the tabernacle and that this requirement reminded the people that the God who dwelt at the central sanctuary was Israel’s supreme Judge. [Note: Kline, "Deuteronomy," p. 179.]
At least two men would decide the case: a judge and a priest. The priest’s function was to clarify how the law of God related to the case. The decision of this court was final, and the people were to regard it as the will of God. People who rejected the decisions of this court were to die because to do so was to rebel against the will of God (Deu 17:12).