Deuteronomy 17:11

17:11 do not modify it: This Hebrew term envisions keeping on a straight path (cp. Prov 4:25-27; Heb 12:13). Once a verdict has been rendered, the sentence must be applied according to the law and the rules of evidence. Justice must be carried out on an unswerving path of fairness and righteousness.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Thou shalt obey their sentence that the controversy may have an end.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

11. law] Heb. torah, usually of the directions given by priests in questions of ritual, covers here their decisions in civil cases as well. Teach, rather direct, is the vb from which Torah is derived.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee,.... For they were not to make any new law, but to teach the law of God, and so far as their sense and opinion of things agreed with that law they were to be regarded:

and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; what were law and justice, what were fit and right to be done, according to the will of God, which they should declare unto them, that was carefully to be done by them:

thou shalt not decline from the sentence they shall show thee, to the right hand nor to the left; by setting up after, all their own judgments against theirs to whom they had applied for information and direction, which to have done would have been very insolent and affronting; they were not to depart from the determination they made of the case, on pretence of knowing better, nor even in any minute circumstance to deviate from it, but strictly and closely to keep unto it; though not to follow them so implicitly as to receive from them and embrace things the most absurd and unreasonable, as Jarchi suggests; who says, that their sense was to be abided by, even if they should say that the right hand is the left, and the left hand the right.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

According, &c. This law was to be the rule of the priests, in passing sentence. It was not left to the judgment of individuals to comply or not, according as they might explain the law for themselves. Such a proceeding would be nugatory, as they would thus be themselves the ultimate judges of their own cause. (Haydock) --- They shall seek the law at his (the priest’s) mouth, Malachias ii. 7. Protestants make, therefore, a very frivolous restriction, when they allow his sentence to bind only "so long as he is the true minister of God, and pronounceth according to his word." (Bible, 1603.) (Worthington) --- If any had been proud enough among the Jews, to persuade himself that he understood the law better than the high priest, he would not on that account have escaped death. (Haydock) --- The authority of the Christian Church is not inferior to that of the Synagogue, only, "instead of death, excommunication is now inflicted" on the rebellious. (St. Gregory, Matthew xviii. 17.; St. Augustine, q. 38.) In effect, St. Paul assures us that the priests of the law, serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. But now he (Christ)...is the mediator of the better covenant, which is established on better promises, Hebrews viii. 5. If therefore the privilege of deciding points of faith and morality, without danger of mistake, was granted to the synagogue, can any one doubt but that Christ would provide as ample a security to his Church, with which he has promised to remain for ever, and with his Holy Spirit to teach her all the truth? (Haydock) --- St. Augustine dwells upon this argument (Doct. 4.) and proves the infallibility both of the Jewish and of the Christian Church. Hence Christ said, with respect to the former, which was not yet rejected, All therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works, do ye not: for they say the truth, and do not practise what they require of others. If the heads of the Catholic Church should be equally immoral, their true doctrine must not therefore be despised, lest Christ and his Father be at the same time despised. For this is the express admonition of our heavenly lawgiver, hear the Church: (Matthew xvii. 17,) and this he does not require without giving us a full assurance, that we may do it without fear of being led astray. The sole command of God implies as much, if he had said no more. For can he order us to sin? The pretended reformers, who blushed not to make this blasphemous assertion, might easily swallow down the other, respecting the defection and fallibility of the whole Church; and might even believe, that the whole world had been drowned in abominable idolatry for eight hundred years and more. (Hom. on the peril of idolat. p. 3.) How much more they do not determine, lest they should be forced to tell when the religion of the Catholics began, and that they will never do without dating from Christ and the apostles, the foundations of the only true Church. (Haydock) --- The Jews had such a respect for the decisions of their Rabbins, in consequence of this command of God, that some hesitate not to assert, that if one of them should declare that the left hand was the right, they would believe him; and they condemn the refractory to most grievous torments in hell. (Buxtorf, Syn. i.) --- We must shew the most profound submission to the decrees of the Church. (Calmet) --- Yet we are not bound to assent to the decisions of every teacher. Only, when the Church speaks, we must not refuse to obey, nor pretend to appoint ourselves judges of what she teaches. A private doctor, however eminent, may fall into some absurdities, but the major part of the pastors of the Church, with the Pope at their head, never can. In vain have the records of nineteen centuries been ransacked, to find a single instance of such a general agreement in error. If the Synagogue passed a wicked sentence upon Jesus Christ, we must reflect that the forms here required (ver. 8,) were neglected; and it was then expiring, and giving place to a better covenant, as the prophets had foretold. Yet even in that sentence, which was so unjust on the part of Caiphas, St. John (xi. 51.) acknowledges the truth of God. And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest, that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not only for the nation, but to gather together in one the children of God that were dispersed. The Synagogue could claim submission no longer, after the great prophet had come to abrogate the law of fear, and to substitute that of love. Hence while he was there to teach himself, (Hebrews i. 2,) there was no danger of deception for the people. But the covenant which he has established is to last for ever: no prophet or lawgiver is promised to introduce any change, or greater perfection, so that no one can plead for an excuse of his rebellion, that the Church may deceive and pass an erroneous judgment; or, if he do, he must be cut off from the society of the faithful, by the spiritual sword; and, dying in that state, without the Church for his mother, he need never expect that God will acknowledge him for his son. See St. Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church. If an individual pastor should pass such a perverse sentence, the case would be very different. Yet, even in such trying cases, an humble conduct will be the best security and proof of innocence, and God will reward those who have suffered unjustly. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee: these words are a manifest limitation of the foregoing assertion, that they were to do according to all that the judge or judges informed him. And they seem to limit and regulate,

1. The judges in their sentence, that they shall not, upon pretence of this supreme authority put into their hands, presume to teach or direct otherwise than the law prescribes.

2. The people in their obedience; first they shall not simply obey them in all things, but so far forth as their sentence is according to the law and word of God, but not when their commands are evidently contrary to God’s laws, for then, say even popish commentators on this place, they must obey God rather than man. And this cannot be denied by any man of sense, upon supposition that this place speaks of, and this power given to the priest or judge reacheth to, all controversies or questions of faith and manners, as the papists would extend it: for put case these priests or judges’ should give a sentence directly contrary to the express words of God’s law, Thou shalt worship a graven image, as Aaron did in the case of the calf, thou shalt profane the sabbath, thou shalt dishonour thy father and mother, thou shalt murder, steal, commit adultery, &c., I ask, were the people in this case bound to do as the judge determined, or not? If any say they were, such a bold and wicked assertion must need strike all sober Christians with horror; and if they say they were not, then this must needs be taken for a limitation. But this place speaks only of particular suits between man and man, as is apparent from the notes on See Poole "Deu 17:8". And in all such cases, although the judge be hereby confined and tied to his rule in giving the sentence, yet it seems but fit and reasonable that people should be bound simply to acquiesce in the sentence of their last and highest judge, or else there would have been no end of strife.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Thou shalt do - In particular suits between man and man, altho' the judge be hereby confined to his rule in giving the sentence, yet it seems but fit and reasonable that people should be bound simply to acquiesce in the sentence of their last and highest judge, or else there would have been no end of strife.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

ימין ושמאל [THOU SHALT NOT DEPART FROM THE WORD WHICH THEY SHALL TELL THEE] TO THE RIGHT NOR TO THE LEFT, 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).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

THOU SHALT NOT DEPART FROM THE WORD WHICH THEY SHALL TELL THEE, TO THE RIGHT NOR TO THE LEFT. “Even if he [the judge of the Great Sanhedrin] tells you of the right that it is the left, or about the left that it is the right [you must obey him].” This is Rashi’s language. The purport thereof is that even if you think in your heart that they are mistaken, and the matter is simple in your eyes just as you know [the difference] between your right hand and your left hand, you must still do as they command you. You are not to say: “How can I [permit myself to] eat this real forbidden fat, or execute this innocent man;” instead you are to say, “The Lord Who enjoined the commandments commanded that I perform all His commandments in accordance with all that they, who stand before Him in the place that He shall choose, teach me to do. He gave me the Torah as taught by them, even if they were to err.” Such was the case of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel [Rabbi Yehoshua being instructed by Rabban Gamaliel to come before him with his walking stick] on the Day of Atonement that occurred according to his reckoning. reckon to be the Day of Atonement. The order caused Rabbi Yehoshua personal anguish because carrying is forbidden on the Day of Atonement. The affair ended with Rabbi Yehoshua obeying Rabban Gamaliel’s command. When Rabbi Yehoshua arrived, “Rabban Gamaliel stood up and kissed him on the head and said to him; ‘Come in peace, my master and my disciple’ — ‘my master’ in wisdom, and ‘my disciple’ because you accepted my words” (Rosh Hashanah 25a).Now the need for this commandment is very great, for the Torah was given to us in written form and it is known that not all opinions concur on newly arising matters. Disagreements would thus increase and the one Torah would become many Torahs. Scripture, therefore, defined the law that we are to obey the Great Court that stands before G-d in the place that He chose in whatever they tell us with respect to the interpretation of the Torah, whether they received its interpretation by means of witness from witness until Moses [who heard it] from the mouth of the Almighty, or whether they said so based on the implication [of the written words] of the Torah or its intent. For it was subject to their judgment that He gave them the Torah even if it [the judgment] appears to you to exchange right for left. And surely you are obligated to think that they say “right” what is truly right, because G-d’s spirit is upon the ministers of His Sanctuary, and He forsaketh not His saints; they are preserved forever from error and stumbling. In the language of the Sifre: 154. “Even if they show you before your own eyes that right is left and that left is right — obey them!”

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.