Study

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. (2 Chronicles 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.” (2 Chronicles 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, (Malachi 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, ²⁰⁶²⁰⁶     על-פי תורה, ver. 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. 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.

He pronounces a similar punishment on those who shall have contumaciously rejected the judgment of the priests. We have already seen that the prophetical office was united with the priesthood; since, according to Malachi 2:4, the covenant of God was with Levi, that his descendants might be the guardians of His knowledge, and the interpreters of His law: yet God often punished the laxity of the priests, by setting other teachers over his people. At any rate, both were ambassadors for Him. Since, therefore, the authority of the prophets had been sanctioned above, the same rights are now conferred upon the priests; nor is this surprising, for it was no trifling crime to despise God, the appointer of this order. Yet we must remember what I have elsewhere stated, that the priests were not armed with tyrannical authority, so that it was sinful to reject whatever they might have decreed according to their own fancy. For neither did God dethrone Himself when He appointed them, nor did He bind men’s consciences to obey their ordinances without distinction, but only would put reins on the audacity of those who have no scruple in undervaluing the government of the Church. For this must be considered, that foul and horrible would be the disorder, if men were promiscuously permitted to reject whatever the rulers of the Church may have appointed; and it would be ridiculous that persons should be called to govern, to whom no dignity should be accorded; and, therefore, natural reason itself shews and dictates, that the reverence, which is here demanded, is due to all lawful commands. God was the author of the priesthood: He, too, ordained judges. What could be more absurd than that they should be despised and laughed at with impunity, who presided in the name and by the command of God? But He has never exalted a mortal man so high as to abdicate His own rights; nay, it was often necessary boldly to reject what the priests had commanded. Urijah the priest built a profane altar in the fashion of that at Damascus, which Ahaz had sent, and offered a sacrifice thereon, ⁵⁵⁵⁵     “Ce vilein traistre Urie y offroit;” that vile traitor Urijah offered on it. — Fr. (2 Kings 16:12,) was it necessary that Isaiah should acquiesce in this? Nay, detestable was the adulation of all who assented to the decree of a wicked and perfidious priest. Moreover, we see that the prophets were very often so far from agreeing with the priests, that they waged open war with them. But the whole of this matter is decided by the words of Moses, for he does not unreservedly condemn all who should not obey, but restricts his law by the addition of a special mark, viz., if the contempt should arise from presumption or arrogance. Therefore it was not else a capital crime to disobey the priest or the judge, unless any one should insolently and proudly oppose himself to the ordinance established by God. Otherwise this exception would have been interposed without reason. In fine, the priests of old were to be obeyed, as far as it concerned the public peace that the pastors ordained by God should be reverently honored; yet so as that there should be no departure from God Himself, the one Head and Prince of all pastors. We have elsewhere seen how foolishly the Papists take this to themselves ⁵⁶⁵⁶     “Combien les Papistes sont sots et badins, voulant faire leur profit de ce passage;” how silly and trifling the Papists are, in seeking to make their profit of this passage. — Fr.

13. And all the people. He shews from the object of the enactment why the proud despisers (of the priests) were not to be spared; for punishments have reference to common example, whilst, on the other hand, impunity is a bait to sin, and the nurse of unbridled licentiousness. And, assuredly, when He commands that the whole people should be inspired with terror, it is a hint that, unless presumption should be corrected, and the bold and wicked should be restrained by severe discipline, the door would be opened to them to destroy the Church.