According to Exod 18:26, Moses did not
judge cases, except for those that were too difficult even for the judges. Deut
17:8–11 institutionalized that arrangement for all time: If there arise a
matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and
plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy
gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy
God shall choose. And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites [Scribes?],
and unto the judge [Pharisee?] that shall be in those days, and enquire; and
they shall teach thee the sentence of judgment. And thou shalt do according to
the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall teach
thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee.
According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according
to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not
decline from the sentence which they shall teach thee, to the right hand, nor
to the left. Jesus understands the High Court to be an institution originally
set up by Moses. The problem is not with the teachings of this Court, but
rather that its judges set down laws that many of the Pharisees of his own time
do not follow. Run-of-the-mill Pharisees justify doing things that differ from,
and even contradict, the High Court’s pronouncements. Jesus castigates these
Pharisaic leaders for their deviation from the authentic rulings of the High
Court, epitomized by the example of oaths and vows, by citing teachings that
apparently were very common in his day and age. Two positions emerge as
operative: one that Jesus believes came down from a High Court at some point in
the past, and another practiced widely by the Pharisaic schools he is
castigating. Although Jesus does not say so, the passage in Deuteronomy
prescribes the death penalty for those who do not heed the teachings of the
High Court. Matthew’s Jesus declares he himself agrees with the Court’s
teachings, and criticizes Pharisees for finding both motives and means for
disregarding the High Court’s decisions, inventing intricate legal mechanisms
that Jesus will now challenge. For the Gospel author, traditions have become
muddled, as reflected in the discrepancy between precepts and practices.
Deuteronomy 17 had warned against those who refused to follow the Court’s
pronouncements.
. . .
Much has been written on the term
“seat of Moses,” speculating about what it refers to: a synagogue seat of
authority (which has some archaeological basis); the seat of the president of
the High Court; a figure of speech for judicial power; a chair from which
lectures were given and various other guesses. To my mind, this is the High
Court in Jerusalem which issued binding decrees (“ex cathedra”, speaking
anachronistically) in accord with biblical legislation. (Herbert W. Basser with
Marsha B. Cohen, The Gospel of Matthew and Judaic Traditions: A
Relevance-Based Commentary [The Brill Reference Library of Judaism 46;
Leiden, Brill, 2015], 585, 593)