9<\/strong>. unto the priests the Levites<\/em> ] See on Deu 10:8<\/span>, Deu 18:1<\/span>. The omission of these words by LXX B is due to careless copying, and in no way supports Steuernagel’s analysis of the text into two laws (see introd. note).<\/p>\n unto the judge that shall be in those days<\/em> ] That is of course either the King, as in 2Sa 14:3<\/span>; 2Sa 15:2<\/span> ff., 1Ki 3:16<\/span> ff., or some official or officials appointed by him, 2Sa 15:3<\/span>, and Jeremiah 26<\/span>, according to which Jeremiah was tried, on the complaint of the priests, by the sarim, lay officers<\/em> or princes<\/em>, under the King. The plur. is thus used in Deu 19:17<\/span>: the priests and the judges which shall be in those days<\/em>.<\/p>\n inquire<\/em> ] darash<\/em> as in Deu 13:14<\/span>, q.v.<\/p>\n shew<\/em> ] Heb. declare to<\/strong> or announce to<\/em>.<\/p>\n sentence<\/em> ] Heb. word<\/em>.<\/p>\n Deu 17:9-14<\/span><\/p>\n Thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Heathen abominations avoided<\/strong><\/p>\n One reason to shun the practices of idolatry springs from the nature of the evils themselves.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>They are cruel. Children pass through the fire. Cruelty is one of the highest scandals to piety, says Seeker. The dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty–homesteads of violence (Psa 74:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>They are enticing. Divination, enchanter, and witch have their spells. Idolatry, a shameful creed of craft and cruelty, delights in what fills the sensuous imagination. Who hath bewitched (fascinated) you, that ye should not obey the truths. (Gal 3:1<\/span>.)<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>They are defiling abominations. Paintings and sculptures, laws and legends, reveal the awful corruptions of the heathen world.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>They are destructive. Because of these abominations the Lord doth drive them out. Sin drives away from God here and from heaven hereafter. The fruit of idolatry and superstitions is death (Lev 20:23<\/span>). (J. Wolfendale.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n That useth divination<\/strong>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Magical arts and divination<\/strong><\/p>\n 1<\/strong>. <\/em><\/strong>Different names are here assigned to persons dealing in the arts of magic. One that useth divination; professing to gain power and knowledge more than human. One that practiseth augury or covert arts. An enchanter: the original suggesting the serpent, and implying the practice of charming serpent, yet always connected with the arts of divination. A sorcerer: the Hebrew word signifying one who mutters incantations, but only in the bad sense of seeking help from others than God. A charmer: a word which suggests binding<\/em> as with the spell of enchantment. A consulter with a familiar spirit: the English phrase signifies spirits who stand in such a relation to the performer that they come at his call<\/em>. Of course it is pretended that these spirits are other and greater than human. The original Hebrew (Ob) comes down to us in the African Obe-man, who still follows the same profession, by means of similar arts. A wizard is one who claims superhuman wisdom, the old English accurately translating the Hebrew; the distinctively wise one. <\/em>The word is restricted in usage to superior wisdom gained by the arts of magic. A necromancer: precisely the spiritist of modern times, or rather of all time, who claims to have communion with the spirits of dead men.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>This analysis of the original words may aid toward some just conception of the associated ideas which cluster round the magic arts <\/em>of the Hebrew age. Their name and their arts are legion. Think of so many classes–professions–of men and women naturally shrewd, sharp, cunning; practising upon the superstitions and fears of the million; working upon their imagination, haunting them with the dread of unknown powers, bringing up to them ghosts from the invisible world, claiming to give auguries of the future, playing in every way upon their fears and hopes, to extort their money or to make sport of their fears or to gratify their own or others malice. A system so near akin in spirit and influence to idolatry, which so thoroughly displaces God from the hopes and fears of men, and which seeks so successfully to install these horrible superstitions in His place–a system, which perverts the powers of the world to come to subserve ungodliness, and which practically rules out the blessed God from the sphere of mens homage, fears, and hopes–this system has always been worked by wicked and never by good men, has always subserved all, iniquity, but piety and morality never–this has been a master-stroke of Satans policy, and one of the most palpable fields of his triumph through all the ages. (H. Cowles, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.–<\/strong><\/p>\n The deterring power of Divine grace<\/strong><\/p>\n It is recognised as a principle amongst legislators and magistrates, that the great end of punishment is the prevention of crime. And there is no doubt that, up to a certain point, this object is gained. The public execution will strike terror into many, though numbers, again, more hardened in wickedness, will depart from the spectacle, and perhaps commit the very crime for which they have just seen a fellow creature die. It is not, however, that they actually set at nought the punishment; it is rather that there are always so many chances of escape, the men transgress in the hope that they shall elude detection, The fearfulness of a threatening, even though combined with the certainty of execution, will not always, nor even commonly, deter men from violating the commandments of God. There is no need for having recourse to imagination for the destruction of a people on account of their wickedness, and their inheritance passing into the possession of others. This is only what actually occurred in the instance of the land of Canaan, whose inhabitants were exterminated because of their crimes, and it was then handed over to a new population. There was here what might strictly be called a public execution. There was no giving a secret commission to the angel of death to move through the doomed ranks, and lay them low; which might perhaps have left it doubtful whether or not there had been any judicial interference; but the Israelites were put visibly into the place of public executioners, being charged with the terrible commission–Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them. They were sent expressly to punish a guilty and condemned population. And the first memorable thing, if you examine the Scriptural record, is that God Himself placed no dependence on the influence and effect of the public execution; for His Word is full of warning to the Israelites, that they would fall under the like condemnation if they imitated the practices of those whom they destroyed. So far from its being reckoned on as an insupposable or even an improbable thing, that they who had been commissioned to slay multitudes on account of their sin would themselves practise the sin so fearfully and openly visited, there is the frequent repetition of energetic denunciations of that sin; and Moses is directed to urge the Israelites, with all earnestness and affection, to take heed that they provoke not the Lord by following the example of their predecessors in the land. You must be further aware, that so far from having been unnecessary, the warning actually failed in deterring the Israelites from the accursed practices; so that it was not against improbable danger that Moses directed his parting admonitions. For when the Israelites had destroyed the Canaanites, and taken possession of their land, they quickly gave in to the very abominations which had been visited with all the fearfulness of a public execution. You read of them in the earliest period of their settlement–They forsook the Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. And their whole history, up to the time when God was provoked to let loose against them the power of the Assyrian, is a record of rebellion under those special and flagrant forms which had marked the guilty career of the tribes which had perished by their sword. Where, then, was the supposed influence of a public execution? What ground is there for the imagination, that even were the Almighty visibly to interfere, and in His character of moral Governor of the universe to anticipate in certain cases those judgments which shall hereafter be poured out on the impenitent, there would be wrought any permanent effect on the great mass of men?–as though the thing wanted in order to repress the actings of unrighteousness were only a more open and express demonstration that punishment is to follow upon sin. And now you may be disposed to ask with what view we have endeavoured to show, that even what might be called a public execution, the present visible descent of the vengeance of God on the perpetrators of certain sins, would probably be ineffectual in deterring others from the practice of those sins–ineffectual even in regard of such persons as had the best means of knowing that the infliction was the direct and judicial consequence of the crime. We have but one object; not that of merely presenting a severe and repulsive picture of the depravity of our nature, but that of shutting you up to the conviction of the necessity, the indispensableness of the Divine grace, in order to your being withheld from the commission of sin. We would withdraw you, if we could, from all reliance on anything but the immediate workings of the Spirit of God, when the matter in question is the being able to resist this or that temptation, or to keep oneself undefiled by this or that wickedness. We would teach you, however harsh the teaching may sound, that there is no wickedness of which you are not capable, and that if you think yourselves secure against a sin just because the sin may be held in abhorrence, or because you may be thoroughly aware of Gods purpose of visiting it with extraordinary vengeance, you display a confidence in your own resolution and strength which, as savouring of pride, can only be expected to issue in defeat. This is virtually the doctrine of our text. For you will perceive that God ascribes it wholly to Himself that the Israelites were preserved from the abominations of the heathen. These nations hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners; but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do. They would have been just as bad had they been left to themselves; but God had not suffered them to fall into such flagrant transgression. He had so acted upon them by His grace as to preserve them from sins, of which they had the seeds in their hearts, just as much as others, in whom those seeds were allowed to bring forth their fruits. And though the text speaks only of the past, making mention of preventing grace as having hitherto wrought upon the Israelites, it is clearly implied in the fact of a remonstrance against any future imitation of the heathen, that there would be no security for them except in their being still withheld by the influences of Gods Spirit. (H. Melvill, B. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Unto the priests the Levites, <\/B>i.e. unto the great council, which it is here denominated from, because it consisted chiefly of the priests and Levites, as being the best expositors of the laws of God, by which all those controversies mentioned Deu 17:8<\/span> were to be decided. And the high priest was commonly one of that number, and may seem to be understood here under the priests, whereof he was the chief. <\/P> Unto the judge:<\/B> this judge here is either, <\/P> 1. The supreme civil magistrate, who was made by God the keeper of both tables, and was by his office to take care of the right administration both of justice and of religion, who was to determine causes and suits by his own skill and authority in civil matters, and by the priests direction in spiritual or sacred causes. But this seems obnoxious to some difficulties, because, <\/P> 1. This judge was obliged to dwell in the place of Gods worship, which the civil magistrate was not, and ofttimes did not. <\/P> 2. This judge was one whose office it was to expound and teach others the law of God, as it here follows, Deu 17:11<\/span>, therefore not the civil magistrate. Or, <\/P> 2. The high priest, who was obliged to live in this place, to whom it belonged to determine some at least of those controversies mentioned Deu 17:8<\/span>, and to teach and expound the law of God. And he may be distinctly named, though he be one of the priests, partly because of his eminency and superiority over the rest of them, as after <\/P> all Davids enemies Saul<\/B> is particularly mentioned, Psa 18:1<\/span>; and partly to show that amongst the priests he especially was to be consulted in such cases. But this also seems liable to objections. <\/P> 1. That he seems to be included under that general expression of the <\/P> priests and Levites.<\/B> <\/P> 2. That the high priest is never in all the Scripture called simply the judge, but generally called the priest, or the high priest<\/I>, or chief priest<\/I>, or the like; and it is most probable if Moses had meant him here, he would have expressed him by some of his usual names and titles, and not by a strange title which was not likely to be understood. <\/P> 3. That divers controversies between blood and blood, plea and plea<\/I>, stroke and stroke<\/I>, were not to be determined by the high priest, but by other persons, as appears by Exo 18:22<\/span>; Deu 1:16<\/span>,17<\/span>. Or, <\/P> 3. The sanhedrim or supreme council, which, as was said before, consisted partly of priests, and partly of wise and learned persons of other tribes, as is confessed by all the Jewish and most other writers. And so this is added by way of explication, partly to show that the priests and Levites<\/I> here mentioned, as the persons to whom all hard controversies are to be referred, are not all the priests and Levites which should reside in Jerusalem, but only such of them as were or should be members of that great council by whom, together with their fellow-members of other tribes, these causes were to be decided; partly to intimate that that great council, which had the chief and final determination of all the above-said controversies, was a mixed assembly, consisting of wise and good men, some ecclesiastical, and some secular; as it was most meet it should be, because many of the causes which were brought unto them were mixed causes. As for the conjunctive particle and<\/I>, that may be taken either disjunctively for or, as it is Exo 21:15<\/span>,17<\/span>, compared with Mat 15:4<\/span>; and Num 35:5<\/span>,6<\/span>, compared with Mat 12:37<\/span>; Lev 6:3<\/span>,5<\/span>; 2Sa 2:19<\/span>,21<\/span>; or exegetically, for that is<\/I>, or to wit, as Jdg 7:24<\/span>; 1Sa 17:40<\/span>; 1Sa 28:3<\/span>; 2Ch 35:14<\/span>; and so the sense may be, the priests, the Levites, or the judge<\/I>, as it is Deu 17:12<\/span>; or, the priests, the Levites, that is, the judge, or the judges<\/I> appointed for this work. And though the word judge<\/I> be in the singular number, and may seem to denote one person, yet it is only an enallage, or change of the number, the singular for the plural, judges<\/I>, which is most frequent, as Gen 3:2<\/span>,7<\/span>; 49:6<\/span>; 1Sa 31:1<\/span>; 1Ki 10:22<\/span>; 2Ki 11:10<\/span>, compared with 2Ch 9:21<\/span>; 23:9<\/span> and in the Hebrew, 1Ch 4:42<\/span>, where divers officers are called one head<\/I>. And so it is most probably here, <\/P> 1. Because the following words Which belong to this run altogether in the plural number, they, they, they<\/I>, &c., here and Deu 17:10<\/span>,11<\/span>. <\/P> 2. Because here is the same enallage in the other branch, the same person or persons being called the priests here<\/I>, and the priest<\/I> Deu 17:12<\/span>. <\/P> 3. Because for the judge<\/I> here is put the judges<\/I>, Deu 19:17<\/span>, where we have the same phrase used upon the same or a like occasion, the men between whom the controversy is shall stand before the Lord<\/I>, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days<\/I>. Nor is it strange, but very fit and reasonable, that so many persons being all united in one body, and to give judgment or sentence by the consent of all, or the greatest part, should be here called by the name of one judge<\/I>, as indeed they were; and for that reason the priests<\/I> are spoken of in the plural number, because they were many, as also the other members of that assembly were, and the judge<\/I> in the singular number, because they all constituted but one judge. The sentence of judgment<\/I>, Heb. the word or matter of judgment<\/I>, i.e. the true state and right of the cause, and what judgment or sentence ought to be given in it. <\/P> <\/p>\n Thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites<\/strong>,…. The priests that are of the tribe of Levi, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi; for Aben Ezra says there are priests that are not of the genealogy of Levi; such there were indeed in Jeroboam’s time, 1Ki 12:31<\/span>. Maimonides f observes, that it is ordered that there should be in the great sanhedrim priests and Levites, as it is said: “and thou shalt come unto the priests, and the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire”; judge is here put for judges, of which the great court consisted, being priests, Levites, and Israelites;<\/p>\n [See comments on De 16:18]<\/span>, though others think that only a single person is meant, such as Othniel, Ehud, Gideon, Samson, c. but then as there was not always such an one in being, I should rather think that the judge here, if a single person, is the president or prince of the great sanhedrim, who succeeded Moses, and sat in his place and of him and his court, the priests, and Levites and Israelites that composed it, inquiry was to be made:<\/p>\n and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment<\/strong>; give their judgment in the difficult case proposed, and declare what is right to be done, and what sentence is to be pronounced.<\/p>\n f Hilchot Sanhedrin, c. 2. sect. 2.<\/p>\n 9<\/strong>. <\/strong> Thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites <\/strong> It is claimed that this book was not written by the same author as the earlier books, because in them the term used is, the priests the sons of Aaron.” In Deuteronomy they are never called the sons of Aaron, but the sons of Levi, or the Levites.<\/p>\n The difference of time in the composition of Leviticus and Deuteronomy is sufficient to account for the different term. When Leviticus was written Aaron was alive. When the discourses of Deuteronomy were spoken Aaron was dead, and the priests would have acquired a position for themselves. It is suggested by Wordsworth, in his Commentary on this passage, that it was very natural that “Moses, now about to depart, should desire to appease all jealousies between priests and Levites; and for this purpose he could not use a more healing phrase than that now before us, the priests the Levites<\/strong>. For thus on the one hand he exhorted the priests to treat the Levites with kindness as brethren, and not to domineer over them; and on the other hand he cheered the Levites with the reflection that the priests were of the same origin as themselves; that they therefore themselves derived honour from the priestly dignity, and ought not to encroach upon it, but to feel themselves honoured by being permitted to assist those who were invested with it.” For a thorough and exhaustive treatment of this question the reader is referred to CURTISS’S Levitical Priests.<\/p>\n the priests the Levites. First occurrence of this expression. Occurs six times in Deut.; elsewhere in Jos 3:31; Jos 8:33. 2Ch 30:27. Neh 11:20. Isa 66:21. Jer 33:21. Eze 44:15. The expression refers to the Levitical priests as distinct from the Tribal priests (or Levites). <\/p>\n the priests: Jer 18:18, Hag 2:11, Mal 2:7 <\/p>\n they shall: Deu 19:17-21, Eze 44:24 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Exo 18:22 – great Lev 13:2 – he shall Deu 16:18 – Judges Deu 25:1 – General Deu 33:10 – They shall teach Ezr 10:14 – our rulers Neh 11:1 – the rulers Job 31:28 – an Zec 7:3 – speak Mat 21:33 – husbandmen Mat 23:3 – whatsoever Joh 1:19 – when Joh 8:11 – Neither<\/p>\n Deu 17:9. Unto the priests That is, unto the great council, which consisted chiefly of the priests and Levites, as being the best expositors of the laws of God, by which all those controversies were to be decided. And the high-priest was commonly one of that number, comprehended here under the priests, whereof he was the chief. By judges, here, seems to be meant those supreme judges of the nation, whom God raised up when the Israelites were oppressed by their enemies, such as Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Samuel, &c. Such judges were, by their office, invested with the highest authority, civil as well as military; for to judge Israel was to administer justice, as well as to command armies. Moses seems to intimate, that the Hebrew commonwealth was to retain, after his death, the same form as it had now when he was alive; for he himself was the supreme judge, or administrator of justice, to whom the more difficult causes were to be referred, Deu 1:17. So Joshua was judge after him, and many other.<\/p>\n 17:9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the {f} judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:<\/p>\n (f) Who will sentence as the priests counsel him by the Law of God.<\/p>\n And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment: 9. unto the priests the Levites ] See on Deu 10:8, Deu 18:1. The omission of these words by LXX B is due to careless … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 17:9”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5382","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"