If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between cause and cause, and between stroke and stroke, matters of controversy within thy gates, then shalt thou arise, and go up to the place which Jehovah thy God will choose.
Israel had local courts in every town. Some cases were beyond them — a killing, a disputed legal right, an assault, where the evidence or the law was tangled. This verse tells the Israelite what to do when human judgment runs out. He must get up and go to the place God has chosen.
Chapter 16 dealt with Israel's worship. From verse 18 the subject changes to how the nation will govern itself in Canaan. One writer shows why a nation's courts belong in a book about holiness:
This chapter leads us onto new ground. The first part of chapter 16 set out the duties of Israel's religious life; now God commands how the people are to be governed in the land. "Israel was to show itself the holy nation of Jehovah in its worship, and in its political life too. This thought forms the link between the laws already given and those which follow. Civil order is the necessary condition for the stability and prosperity of nations and states. It rests on carefully maintaining what is right, through a well-ordered court system and a fair administration of justice." Israel was to appoint judges and officials, and to set up a higher court for harder cases at the sanctuary.
One writer traces the Hebrew word behind "too difficult" through the rest of Scripture. Older translations render it "too hard" here, and the same word elsewhere means a wonder or a miracle:
The word for 'consecrate' (Hebrew pala) has, at first sight, an astonishing variety of translations: 'wonderful' (Gen. 18:14; Deut. 28:59), 'wonder' (Ex. 3:20), 'marvel' (Ex. 34:10), 'miracle' (Judg. 6:13), 'accomplish' (Lev. 22:21), 'too hard' (Deut. 17:8).
The verse does not send the man to a wiser neighbour. It sends him to one place, the place God Himself chose:
Here we have divine provision made for the perfect settlement of all questions which might arise throughout the congregation of Israel. They were to be settled in the divine presence, at the divinely appointed centre, by the divinely appointed authority. This effectively guarded against self-will and presumption.
The same writer adds what that meant for both sides in a dispute:
In a word, it was entirely a matter of divine authority. Each one had to submit his cause to a divine tribunal and bow to its decision without reserve. There was to be no appeal, since there was no higher court.
It may seem strange that priests are named among the judges of hard cases. One writer explains what fitted them for the work:
These matters of judgment belong to the practical difficulties of daily life. Where questions were too hard for ordinary men, the people had to appeal to the priests. This was not so much because they offered the sacrifices. It was because they ought to know the word of God better in practice, and so their senses were more trained to tell good from evil.
The same writer applies this to believers today, who differ in spiritual measure:
Still, it cannot be denied that there are wide differences of measure among real believers. We all know that there are some among God's people to whom we could not happily open our difficulties, and some to whom we could speak most freely. Some have such a spiritual tone and such a ripe knowledge of His mind that they help others. They do not help by taking authority over other people's consciences, or by claiming dominion over their faith — not even an apostle would do that. They help by spiritual capacity, giving a judgment formed by walking in habitual fellowship with Him.
One writer carries the pattern over to the Church:
If such a case arose in Israel, it went up to God's centre, Jerusalem, to the priests, Levites and the judges in authority at the time. Their judgment was final and binding. In the Church of God today there is no such earthly centre of human authority, but Christ is the Centre, and His presence alone will settle such things. We need concerted, united dependence upon Himself, for He is the one Judge we may depend on.
Another points to the Judge Himself, who missed nothing in any case brought to Him:
Surely He was enough. He knew the ins and outs, the pros and cons, the roots and issues of every dispute, however tangled or difficult. All were to look to Him, and to bring their causes to the place which He had chosen, and nowhere else.
- Too hard. The Hebrew word for "too difficult" is elsewhere translated "wonderful" and "miracle". A hard case is simply beyond the reach of ordinary men.
- Go up. The man does not settle a hard case himself. He must rise and travel to the place God chose.
- One centre. God settles the dispute in His own presence, at His chosen place, by His appointed authority. That is what shuts out self-will.
- No appeal. Both sides bow, because there is no higher court to run to.
- Still enough. God knew the roots and issues of every dispute then. Commentators point His people now to Christ, the one Judge they can depend on.
And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment;
Deuteronomy 17:9 belongs to the rules for hard cases: what local judges could not settle went up to the place God had chosen. The questions are still live: who settles a dispute among God's people, why a priest sits beside a judge, and what happens when someone ignores the verdict.
The arrangement took the last word out of human hands. Both sides were bound by the answer.
In a word, it was absolutely and entirely a matter of divine authority. It was not for one man to set himself up in self-will and presumption against another. This would never do in the assembly of God. Each one had to submit his cause to a divine tribunal, and bow completely to its decision. There was to be no appeal, since there was no higher court. The divinely appointed priest or judge spoke as the oracle of God, and both plaintiff and defendant had to bow, without objection, to the decision.
The verse names two kinds of people: priests and a judge. Deuteronomy gives the priest a different role from the one Leviticus gives him.
Here again the principle is good and holds for the present time. We must remember that this book of Deuteronomy uses priests in a different way from what is found elsewhere. The question here is not so much their service in standing between the people and God. It is their helping the people in what they owed to Him. In Leviticus it is the former, because there the question is drawing near to God. The people could not go into the sanctuary, so the priests went for them.
The phrase points to the man God had raised up at the time. Saul shows what it costs to ignore him.
Long before Samuel's day God had already foreseen this kind of situation, and His instructions were: "You shall come … to the judge who is in office in those days … you shall not turn aside from the verdict that they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left" (Deut. 17:8-12). Samuel was, without a doubt, the judge God raised up for his days, and the Word of God required obedience to his instructions. Saul disobeyed. He followed what seemed convenient to him, and he treated the Word of God, through Samuel, as only Samuel's opinion.
Declaring a decision is not a power a man holds whatever his life is like.
To judge the house of God and to keep His courts belonged to the priest's office (see Deut. 17:9-13; Malachi 2:7; also 2 Chr. 26:16-21). But no one could do these things truly unless he was himself walking in obedience to the word. There is surely a voice in all this for those who take the lead among the saints of God (compare 1 Tim. 3). In Eli's and Samuel's days many evils, corruptions, and abuses had crept in among the people, to the dishonour of the Lord's name. It is the same now: when man's will in those who lead sets aside the authority of Christ, there can be nothing but confusion and corruption in the assembly.
If God had provided a court, taking the case elsewhere said something about God.
The Lord Himself was among them to give judgement in every case that might arise. So going elsewhere would have been a direct insult to Him. He was surely enough. He knew every dispute inside out: the arguments on both sides, its roots and its outcomes, however tangled or difficult. All were to look to Him, and to bring their cases to the place which He had chosen, and nowhere else. The idea of two members of the assembly of God appearing before a court of the uncircumcised for judgement would not have been tolerated for a moment. It would be as much as to say that there was a defect in the divine arrangement for the congregation.
Commentators differ on how far the pattern transfers. One writer draws the line at the geography while keeping the principle.
If such a case arose in Israel, the matter went to God's centre, Jerusalem (v.8), to the priests, Levites and the judges in authority at the time. Their judgment of the case was final and binding (vs.10-11). In the Church of God today there is no such earthly centre of human authority, but Christ is the Centre, and His own presence alone will settle such things. We need united dependence upon Himself, for He is the one Judge we may depend on. This will always be properly guarded by consulting and obeying the Word of God.
- Too hard — the verse starts where human skill runs out. A case the local judges cannot settle is not dropped. It goes up.
- Carried up — to the place God chose. Going anywhere else would say His provision was not enough.
- Two voices — a priest helps the people with what they owe God, and a judge sits beside him. Together they declare the decision; they do not invent it.
- One verdict — final, with no higher court. The man who hears it and still does as he pleases is acting in self-will.
- Clean hands — those who declare God's mind must be walking in it. If not, the leading itself becomes the corruption.
and thou shalt do according to the tenor of the word, which they of that place which Jehovah will choose shall declare unto thee; and thou shalt take heed to do according to all that they instruct thee
A dispute in an Israelite town could outrun the wisdom of the local judges. Verse 10 says what happens next. The case goes up to the place God has chosen. The answer given there settles it, and the man must carry out every part of it with care.
This law points away from private opinion and toward one place God appoints. One commentator sums up the arrangement:
Here God made provision for the perfect settlement of every question that might arise throughout the congregation of Israel. Such questions were to be settled in God's presence, at the centre He appointed, by the authority He appointed. So self-will and presumption were guarded against. Every matter of controversy was to be settled once for all by God's judgement, expressed through the priest or the judge He appointed for the purpose.
The verse sends the man to priests and a judge. These priests are not doing what priests do in Leviticus:
Here again the principle is good and valid for today. We must remember that this book of Deuteronomy uses priests in a clearly different way from other books. Here the question is not so much their service in standing between the people and God. It is more their help to the people in what they owed to Him. In Leviticus it is the first of these, because there the question is drawing near to God. The people could not go into the sanctuary, but the priests went in for them.
The verse does not invite the man to weigh the answer and decide whether he likes it. It tells him to act on it:
In a word, it was entirely and absolutely a matter of divine authority. One man was not to set himself up in self-will and presumption against another. This would never do in the assembly of God. Each one had to bring his cause to God's court and bow without question to its decision. There was to be no appeal, since there was no higher court. The priest or judge God appointed spoke as the mouthpiece of God. Both sides in the case had to bow to the decision without objection.
God Himself was among them to judge. So taking a quarrel to a court outside Israel insulted Him:
It must be very clear to the reader that no member of the congregation of Israel would ever have thought of taking his case before a Gentile court. Every true Israelite would have found the idea completely foreign to his thoughts and feelings. It would have been a direct insult to the Lord Himself, who was among them to give judgement in every case that might arise. He was enough. He knew the ins and outs, the arguments on both sides, the roots and the outcomes of every controversy, however tangled or difficult.
Israel had a fixed address for hard cases. One writer marks what has taken its place:
If such a case arose in Israel, the man had to take the matter to God's centre, Jerusalem (v.8). He brought it to the priests, the Levites and the judges in authority at the time. Their judgment of the case was final and binding (vs.10-11). In the Church of God today there is no such earthly centre of human authority. Christ is the Centre, and His own presence alone will settle such things. We need to depend on Him together, for He is the one Judge we may rely on.
Some believers can help others with their hard questions. But there is a limit:
Still, no one can deny that there are wide differences of measure among real believers. We all know there are some among the people of God to whom we could not gladly open our difficulties, and some to whom we could speak most freely. Some have such a spiritual tone and such a ripe knowledge of His mind that they help others. They do this not in the least by assuming authority over the consciences of others, and not by claiming dominion over their faith. Not even an apostle would do that. Still, they truly help, because their spiritual capacity gives a judgment formed by walking habitually in fellowship with Him.
- Too hard — Some disputes outran local wisdom, so God gave Israel one place to settle them.
- Go up — The case went to God's presence, to the centre He chose and the authority He appointed.
- Hear — In Deuteronomy the priests help the people with what they owed God, more than they stand between them and God.
- Do — There was no appeal, because there was no higher court; both sides bowed to the decision.
- Today — No earthly centre of human authority remains. Christ is the Centre, and those who help do so without claiming dominion over anyone's faith.
according to the sentence of the law which they shall declare unto thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do thou shalt not decline from the word which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, or the left.
This verse closes a short law about cases the local courts could not settle. Such a case went up to the place God chose, and the people had to obey the ruling given there exactly. Two questions follow. On what basis did those men speak? And what does a believer do today, when no such court exists?
The whole arrangement rests on one place where a dispute could go no further:
When a matter was too difficult for the ordinary procedure, the sanctuary became the place of final appeal. There the priest's voice could back up the judge's, and this appeal was ultimate. No one could resist a sentence given that way without rebellion.
The ruling did not bind because of the men's standing. It bound because of where they spoke and who appointed them.
Here God makes provision to settle perfectly every question that might arise among the people of Israel. Israel had to settle these questions in God's presence, at the centre He appointed, by the authority He appointed. This effectively guarded against self-will and presumption. God's own judgement settled every dispute for good, and He expressed it through the priest or the judge He appointed for the purpose.
The verse also forbids turning aside to the right or the left. There was nowhere further to take the case, and both sides were bound alike:
In a word, it was absolutely and entirely a matter of divine authority. It was not for one man to set himself up in self-will and presumption against another. This would never do in the assembly of God. Each one had to bring his case to a divine court, and bow completely to its decision. There was to be no appeal, since there was no higher court. The priest or judge God appointed spoke as the mouthpiece of God. Both plaintiff and defendant had to bow to the decision without objection.
The verse says to act on the instructions they give. One writer explains why these particular men were asked:
So in these matters of judgment, which belong to the practical difficulties of daily life, some questions were too hard for ordinary men. The people had to appeal to the priests. This was not so much for their sacrificial work, but because they ought to have greater practical acquaintance with the word of God. Their senses were thereby more exercised to discern good and evil. We grant at once that nothing can be more ruinous in Christendom than to claim an earthly priesthood. That claim rests on the notion that some have a right of access to God which others do not have. It is in effect to deny the gospel.
Commentators differ on how this carries over. One draws the line at the centre itself:
If such a case arose in Israel, the people took the matter to God's centre, Jerusalem (v.8). They put it before the priests, the Levites and the judges in authority at the time. Their judgment of the case was final and binding (vv.10–11). In the Church of God today there is no such earthly centre of human authority. Christ is the Centre, and His own presence alone will settle such things. We need united dependence on Him, for He is the one Judge we may depend on.
Another writer points to what God's people have instead, and where they need not go:
The Lord's people will still find the grace of Christ always enough for them. They will find the word of God full of all needed instruction and authority. So they never need turn to the world for help, counsel or judgement. "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
No one today speaks as that court spoke. But one writer points to the help that remains, given without authority over anyone:
Still, everyone must feel the value of a spiritual person's judgment where we fail... There are some among the people of God to whom we could not happily open our difficulties, and some to whom we could speak most freely. Some have such a spiritual tone and ripe acquaintance with His mind that they help their fellow believers. They do not in the least assume authority over the consciences of others, or claim dominion over their faith. Not even an apostle would do this. Yet they do help, through a spiritual capacity to give a judgment formed by a habit of walking in fellowship with Him.
- Too hard — some cases are beyond ordinary judges, and the law makes provision for them.
- The centre — the case went up to the place God chose. The answer came in His presence and by His appointment, not by human rank.
- The verdict — there was no higher court. The sentence was final, and both sides had to bow to it.
- No turning aside — obey the ruling exactly, neither right nor left. That shuts out self-will and presumption.
- Christ the Centre — no earthly court of this kind stands today. Commentators point to Christ's own presence as the authority that settles matters. Spiritual believers help too, but never with dominion over anyone's faith.
And the man that shall act presumptuously, and not hearken unto the priest that standeth to serve there before Jehovah thy God, or unto the judge, that man shall die; and thou shalt put away evil from Israel.
When a case was too hard for the local judges, it went up to the place God had chosen. There the priest and the judge gave the verdict, and this verse deals with the man who refuses it — a death penalty that raises one question: whose authority was he defying?
The point was not the wisdom of these two men. Behind them stood the authority of God Himself.
In a word, it was absolutely and entirely a matter of divine authority. It was not for one man to set himself up in self-will and presumption against another. There was no appeal, because there was no higher court. The priest or judge appointed by God spoke as His mouthpiece, and both sides had to bow to the decision without objection.
The verse names two men, not one, and the place where they served explains why.
In matters too difficult to settle by the ordinary procedure, the sanctuary became the place of final appeal, where the priest's voice could reinforce that of the judge; and this appeal was final. A sentence given in this way no one could resist without rebellion.
The verse does not punish a man for losing his case. It punishes the man who "acts presumptuously." Commentators point to the plainness of the command as what makes the sin presumption.
This was truly a presumptuous sin — it was flying in the face of a most plain and positive commandment of God. It is this that specially marks a presumptuous sin and leaves it utterly inexcusable. No one can plead ignorance when God has given a plain command.
Such sins were not always shocking acts. One writer shows where their real weight lay, and carries the point forward to our own day.
Presumptuous sins were not acts of moral wickedness, but direct insults to the majesty of the Law-giver, such as gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. Now God deals in grace, not law. The effective work of the Son of God has been declared. Presumptuous sin now means dishonouring that work by going back to confidence in the flesh, in law, and in self-righteousness.
The chapter sends the puzzled man to those most likely to know God's mind. This gives no man authority over another's conscience. It does commend the judgment of people who walk close to God.
At the same time all must feel the value of a spiritual man's judgment where we fail. There are those among the people of God to whom we could not happily open our difficulties, and others to whom we could speak most freely. Some have such a spiritual tone and such ripe knowledge of His mind that they help their brothers. They do not assume authority over the consciences of others. They do not claim dominion over anyone's faith — not even an apostle would do this. They help by a spiritual capacity to judge, formed by habitual walking in fellowship with Him.
Saul, Israel's first king, is the clearest case. He disobeyed the judge God had raised up for his day.
Long before Samuel's day, God had already prepared for this very situation. His instruction was: "You shall come… to the judge who is in office in those days… you shall not turn aside from the verdict that they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left" (Deut. 17:8-12). Samuel was, without a doubt, the judge God raised up for his days. The Word of God commanded full obedience to his instructions. Saul disobeyed. He did what looked practical to him, and he treated the Word of God, through Samuel, as only Samuel's opinion.
The death penalty belonged to Israel's law. The proud attitude behind it is still here, and so is the verse's aim: purge the evil, and let others take warning.
One might act presumptuously, asserting his own will as superior to the decision of the judges, and such a person had to be put to death. Sadly, there are many today who have this proud, self-assertive attitude, which can do great damage among the saints of God. Though we cannot put them to death, we can and should rebuke them publicly (1 Tim. 5:20), so that others also may fear, as Israel would fear at the death sentence passed on one of them. If the rebuke does not restrain this proud attitude, we may have to refuse the offender all practical fellowship (Matt. 18:17).
- Authority, not opinion. The hard case went up to the place God chose. The verdict there was God's own, spoken through the priest and the judge.
- Final, not negotiable. There was no higher court. To resist the sentence was rebellion, so both sides had to bow.
- Presumption defined. The sin is not losing an argument. It is flying in the face of a plain command — an insult to the Law-giver that no ignorance can excuse.
- Saul's example. He treated God's word through Samuel as merely Samuel's opinion, and did what looked practical. That is this verse's warning acted out.
- Warning that still stands. The penalty was Israel's; the attitude survives. Where self-will overrides God's word, commentators call for open rebuke. If that fails, we must refuse the offender fellowship, so that others hear and fear.