Deuteronomy 17:8-13—8 “If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. 9 And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. 10 You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the LORD chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you. 11 According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you. 12 Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.”
To understand this properly we have to look back to the book of Exodus, where Reuel (Jethro) gave Moses instruction on setting up the judges over these matters. Exodus 18:19-22—19 “Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. 20 And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. 21 Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you.” This advice was given to Moses before God gave Moses the Law, but Moses instituted this arrangement of the various courts the people would stand before to bring their grievances to be heard. Remember, these were men, imperfect men, and there would be times when the issues brought to them would be too much or too difficult for them to rule on. These cases would be referred to the priests for final verdict and (if necessary) sentence. “Can you give an example of such a case?” Well, if two men fought each other and damage was done to one, but they could not determine if the damage was brought about willfully or if it was done through an act of self-defense or by accident. “Yes, I put his eye out, but he was going to kill me.” And the judge could not determine if the one who dealt the damaging blow did so rightly or wrongly. This was a matter “too hard for you to judge” and the matter would go before the priests who dwelt near the Tabernacle, or “the place which the LORD your God chooses.” (Today, one would not take an assault case to the traffic court.) These were the ones trained extensively in the Law, who talked about it day and night and were well-versed in the nuances of this Law.
“Between degrees of guilt for bloodshed.” As I mentioned in a previous post, today we have 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-degree murder. Was the act premeditated? Were there mitigating circumstances? Was it self-defense? Did it occur in the midst of committing another felony? All these questions need to be weighed before a prosecutor brings a case to court. If they charge a person with 1st-degree murder when no premeditation was involved, the person will be found not guilty, and the prosecutor cannot charge the person again for the murder (see the “Double Jeopardy” clause in the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution). These issues may not be clear to the one judging a case in our text, so they may refer that one to the priests. Was the killing premeditated? Or was it accidental? This may not be something this judge could ascertain, and thus the case was bound up to the priests (as the Jerusalem Targum says).
“Between one judgment or another.” There may arise a case where it is not clear what the judgment should be. What was the value of the ox that died? Would it be thirty shekels or fifty? Sometimes even these judges did not trust themselves to judge these matters rightly and felt it was better to refer such a case to one who knew the valuations better.
“Or between one punishment or another.” Exodus 22:1—“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep.” But what about a goat? Suppose a man steals a goat and sells it; how many goats should the offender give to replace it? Exodus 22:2-3—2 “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.” But it was unknown whether the thief broke in during the night or if the sun had risen. How does the judge determine whether or not this would be a capital charge?
In any of these three cases, if the judge decided he could not rightly apply the Law and render a just judgment, he was to send the case to the priests who were ministering at the Tabernacle. “And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment.” These were the men I talked about earlier, whose lives were dedicated to studying the Law of God, to applying that Law to the various cases that came before them, to meting out justice with mercy and righteousness. And yes, there was mercy and righteousness in the Law of God. Suppose the woman who was defiled was trying to shout, but the man covered her mouth so she could not scream for help. Should she be punished along with the man? No, the woman could not be heard screaming, but she did try to scream. To you and me it’s a no-brainer, but these men were charged with administering the justice delivered to them by God Himself. And it was this concept of justice with mercy and righteousness that Jehoshaphat had in mind when he arranged the judges in the courts when he was king. 2nd Chronicles 19:5-11—5 Then he set judges in the land throughout all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city, 6 and said to the judges, "Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. 7 Now therefore, let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take care and do it, for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes." 8 Moreover in Jerusalem, for the judgment of the LORD and for controversies, Jehoshaphat appointed some of the Levites and priests, and some of the chief fathers of Israel, when they returned to Jerusalem. 9 And he commanded them, saying, "Thus you shall act in the fear of the LORD, faithfully and with a loyal heart: 10 Whatever case comes to you from your brethren who dwell in their cities, whether of bloodshed or offenses against law or commandment, against statutes or ordinances, you shall warn them, lest they trespass against the LORD and wrath come upon you and your brethren. Do this, and you will not be guilty. 11 And take notice: Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king's matters; also the Levites will be officials before you." Jehoshaphat was bringing back this concept of justice that Moses had laid out but had been forgotten. The poor would now be heard just as well as the rich. The widow would have the same justice as the woman with a husband. The orphan would be treated as well as the king’s son. 6 “Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. 7 Now therefore, let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take care and do it, for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes.” The administering of the Law was not to be done as a way to shield those who could do things for the judges. But that is what it had turned into. These judges saw their position as a way to gain wealth and privilege and status among the people, not as the one who administered God’s Law rightly and who were charged with upholding the name and righteousness of God. The same thing is happening today. There are judges who see themselves as better than others, as those who can keep their wealthy friends (or their kids) from having to pay a speeding ticket or keep them out of jail when they do the things that God calls abominable.
When Jeffrey Epstein (who, by the way did not kill himself) was convicted in 2008 of sexual crimes against minor girls, he (and his wealthy, also guilty friends) received, basically, a slap on the wrist as a sentence. And they were given immunity from future prosecution. The US Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility said it found nothing wrong with the deal given him by then-US Attorney Alex Acosta, only that he used “poor judgment”. "There is no iniquity with the LORD our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes." Not saying any bribes were given or taken in the Epstein case, but it is awfully suspicious that this man was arrested and charged with sexual abuse against 36 underage girls, but was only sentenced for one count of solicitation of a minor (to which he pled guilty), for which he was sentenced to 13 months in federal prison, and given 12 hours a day, 6 days a week work release. If this was a street pimp, he would have been nailed to the wall and sent to a maximum-security prison for the mandated maximum sentence. But because Epstein was wealthy, he received a stupidly light sentence. Both cases (the real and the hypothetical) should receive very stiff sentences, but the wealthy get preferential treatment while the other does not. This should not be the case and would not have been the case under the Mosaic Law, where the poor would receive the same justice as the wealthy (it may be better to say the wealthy would receive the same justice as the poor).
10 “You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the LORD chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you. 11 According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you.” When the priest makes his decision, it is final. There was no appeal. These were the men who ministered to God, who communicated with God, and who understood better than anyone the Law of God. They were the final arbiters, and what they decided was best, and their decision was to be followed, no matter how the involved parties felt. These were not men who could be bought or bribed and thus ruled honestly and correctly. Their basis for their rulings was not their own likes or dislikes; it was not how they felt about one party or the other. They were bound by only one thing, the Law of God and His justice. And delivering a ruling based on His law and His righteousness let everyone know that it was God and God alone who possessed righteousness.
These cases were not tried in the court of public opinion, but before God Himself. And judges should not be swayed one way or the other when presiding over cases by what the public feels should be the proper rendering of the case. The public may think it is wrong to send a man to prison for a certain crime, despite what the law says. Perhaps they feel the judge should be lenient toward him or that maybe the defendant should be found guilty no matter what the facts of the case are. The case of Tawana Brawley is one example of this. Ms. Brawley was a young black girl who, in 1987, accused four white men of raping her, writing racial slurs across her chest, smearing her with feces and leaving her in a garbage bag. The case drew headlines across the nation and a public outcry against racism. She became a rallying cry for the black community and drew the attention of black activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Long story short, this turned out to be a hoax, perpetrated by Ms. Brawley herself. She made up the story to avoid getting in trouble with her parents for visiting her boyfriend in jail. In 2020, George Floyd died while being arrested by police in Minneapolis. The case, again, drew widespread headlines and criticism of police and their use of force. It sparked numerous riots and many businesses in many cities were burned in protest. An officer, Derek Chauvin, was arrested and tried for murdering Floyd. And even though one toxicologist found that Floyd had “a fatal level” of Fentanyl in his system and even though the autopsy found “no evidence of asphyxiation” (https://www.foxnews.com/us/medical-examiner-george-floyd-fentanyl-system) Chauvin was found guilty of murder.
Both cases highlight the use of public opinion to try to sway jurors to find the defendant guilty or innocent, whether the defendant is actually guilty or innocent. But the priests were not to be swayed, seeing as how they were ruling in cases using God’s Law to do so, and in front of Him. The weight of the fact that not only was God on His throne watching things transpire but was right there watching the case was enough to keep the priests from ruling by anything other than the Torah. And the judge listening to the case was to abide by their ruling and to not stray from it. Just as our Supreme Court, when they render a ruling, are not to make new laws but to rule on the merits of the cases before them by using the US Constitution as their guide, to determine if the rulings in the lower courts were correct. And here, the priests were the Supreme Court (so to speak). Even if the priest ruled in a way that you do not understand, and seems contrary, you must listen to and obey his words, as he is the one who ministers to God. Rabbi Jarchi wrote, “Even if he (the judge) tells you about what appears to you to be right that it is left, or about what appears to you to be left that it is right, you have to obey him; how much the more is this so if actually he tells you about what is evidently right that it is right and about what is left that it is left (cf. Sifrei Devarim 154:5).” Even if what the priest tells you seems to be the right or left, you are to abide by his decision. Because you do not know better than the priest to whom you sent the case for clarification. Will you go against the ruling of one who knows better than you do?
Let’s take an argument the skeptic uses. “So, if a woman is raped, and the rapist turns and says they believe in Jesus, he can go to heaven and the woman can go to Hell? That’s not fair!” That person is saying that they know more about justice than God. Because they are looking only at temporal justice, whereas God looks at eternal justice. If the man commits such a heinous act, is sent to prison, and God softens his heart to hear and believe the Gospel, and the man turns to Christ, saying “Be merciful to me, a sinner!” and lives out the rest of his life in the ways of God, he has paid his debt for his crime, and now God will deal with his soul rightly, granting pardon for his sin and gifting to him eternal life. He goes to the woman and asks for her forgiveness. She refuses to forgive him, saying that what he did is unforgiveable. And she lives the rest of her life, never thinking that she has ever sinned, not worrying about her eternal soul, and living as if there is no God. How can God grant her eternal life, even though a heinous thing has been done to her, when she has denied Him and His Son who died to forgive sins? Does she understand justice and mercy better than God? She does not. She may understand temporal justice, but does not understand, nor does she care about eternal justice.
12 “Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.” If the judges were bound to obey the ruling of the priest, how much more the parties in the case. The priest ruled thus, the judge agreed—what have you to say against them? Both were (ultimately) appointed by God, and who are you to answer back against God? The Hebrew word translated “presumptuously” is זָדוֹן (zadon, “pride, insolence, presumptuousness, arrogance”). It denotes an attitude of haughtiness and thinking that the person is somehow better than others. It is used six times in the Old Testament, with four of those times being in the book of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 18:22—“When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously.” Numbers 15:30—“But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people.” In Exodus 21:14 it is translated “with premeditation”. Exodus 21:14—“But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.” As you can see, the word “presumptuous” is often associated with something that would call for the person being cut off from the people or being executed. And it is from the Hebrew root word זוּד (zud, “To boil, boil up, seethe, act proudly, act presumptuously, act rebelliously, be presumptuous, be arrogant, be rebelliously proud”). Pride was (and is) a dangerous thing. It was what doomed our father Adam to his downfall and infected all of humanity with him. It was the pride of Solomon who, having greater wisdom than any man ever, loved so many pagan wives (1st Kings 11:1-12). It was pride that led David to number Israel near the end of his life (1st Chronicles 21:1). It was the pride of Nebuchadnezzar that brought him low in the eyes of God when He made him eat grass like a wild beast for a year (Daniel 4:31-33). It was Simon’s pride that caused him to boast to Jesus that he would not betray Him (Matthew 26:35). It always was, and always is, pride that leads men to commit sins, sins that are contrary to God and put the man upon a pedestal. And God will break that man, so he sees that only God is God.
“Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die.” If a man went against the ruling of the priest and the judge, he was showing an arrogant contempt for the men of God, and men like that do not need to be living in a community of God’s people, and they need to be rooted out lest they infect the entire people with their arrogance. Proverbs 16:18—Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 18:12—Before destruction the heart of a man is haughty, and before honor is humility. Proverbs 21:24—A proud and haughty man—"Scoffer" is his name; he acts with arrogant pride. This is the attitude that must be kept far away from God’s people, and one we should always examine ourselves for, to see if there is any root of pride within us, that can grow into full-blown pride, which can lead us into sin and bring us destruction. John Trapp:
But God loadeth such a man with disgrace, as here, and gives him his due character. Men also will hate him and despise him for a "son of Belial," as Nabal’s servants said of him; for a mad frantic fellow, being once enraged, cares not what he says, as Jonas, what he doth, as Saul, who dealing in proud wrath, was so kindled by the devil, that he could not be quenched till he fell into the unquenchable lake. Besides the infamy that will never be washed off, the brand of reproach, like that of Dathan and Abiram, who rose up in proud wrath against Moses and Aaron, and are therefore worthily stigmatised.
Part 3 next week
Jesus Christ is Lord.
Amen.
