• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Judges v Elders

PeteR

PeteR

Moderator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
I'm curious you guys' thoughts on the roles of judges and elders, especially as it transitions into the apostolic period. Shaul (Paul), to my recollection, never mentions judges, so I get the impression the roles, particularly as exercised in the time of the kings, became conflated...

Here is why I am curious: If the NT sees elders as functioning as judges (when necessary) then how does that affect our understanding of NT elders being 'husband of one' when clearly the Judges had multiple wives.

Now, I believe for various reasons that Christendom misunderstands and misreads Shaul on the natter, but this seems another line of insight into what Shaul was actually saying if the role of judge is rolled into the elder/bishop categories...

Thoughts?
 
Opinion, I believe that the Apostles hold the primary role Judges held. The others roles divided amongst prophets, evangelists, Shepherds (pastors) and Rabi (teachers) spoken in Ephesians 4:11.
What that looks like today in application which are Bishops, which are Elders and which are Deacons I'm not exactly sure?

I believe that the commentary made by Paul before the mia statement does not match with the interpretation that mia means one. If we take the statement about above reproach in context with the teachings about marriage and divorce. Bishops, Elders, and Deacons can not be unlawfully divorce better if they're not divorced at all. There is not a prohibition against Polygyny in scripture so, my understanding is that Bishops, Elders, and Deacons are not bound to monogamy.

I know this is not the original stance I held but as we work things out on threads here on the forum and I grow in understanding of scripture I've let go of alot of the mainstream indoctrination.
 
As I understand it, the judges were basically a secular government.
Replaced by a king.
The priests governed the religious world.

We already have more government than I can afford.
 
steve said:
As I understand it, the judges were basically a secular government.
Replaced by a king.
The priests governed the religious world.

We already have more government than I can afford.
Click to expand...
Some Judges were also prophets.

The need for the various judges was in many cases apostasy, hardship brought on as punishment for apostasy, and the crying out to the Lord for rescue for their self induced hardships.

In this role they were secular leaders in time of war, adminsters of G-d justice, arbiters of G-ds will, servant to the people and prophet.

1 Samuel 8:4-9

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Behold, you have grown old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us—like all the nations.” But the matter was displeasing in Samuel’s eyes when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to Adonai.

Then Adonai said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you. For they have not rejected you, rather they have rejected Me from being king over them. Like all the deeds that they have done since the day I brought them out of Egypt to this day—forsaking Me and worshiping other gods—so they are doing to you also. So now, listen to their voice. However, you must earnestly forewarn them, and declare to them the rulings of the king who will reign over them.”

It may be just me but I see the role of Judges as Shepards guiding their flock by G-ds judgement. Some where good Shepards some where the proverbial bad Shepard.
 
In the OT the elders sat in the city gates to judge disputes. I suspect the King operated as sort of a fall back for appeals or judges who couldn't decide a case. This should color our view of NT elders at least some.

1 Cor 6:1-8 leads me to believe the church also has a role to judge disputes between brethren. But not much is spoken of this in the NT.
 
Thanks, all. Agreed on 'mia', it can't mean 'one', so no problem there.

I think we are pretty much all on the same page with judges, though yesterday's Torah portion made me think that the town judges were Levites. The Judges, as in the time between Joshua and Saul were not necessarily Levites. Most were Elders of tribes.

The fact that the roles and expectations according to Scripture clearly overlap the roles of deacons and elders in the NT and the fact that there is NO evidence of this leadership position in the OT being required to be monogamous (in fact, quite the opposite), then we can see that it adds extra weight to the argument against 'mia' meaning 'one.'

Thank you.
 
Ancient Paths said:
. The Judges, as in the time between Joshua and Saul were not necessarily Levites. Most were Elders of tribes
Click to expand...
Also if I'm not mistaken throughout the Book of Judges each tribe had a judge at one time.
 
Ancient Paths said:
Thanks, all. Agreed on 'mia', it can't mean 'one', so no problem there.
...
.
Click to expand...
Hi bro, As we hashed out a lot in the threads on that, I personally think arguing mia is not a strong case based on the Greek; the best tact is arguing the actual definitions of the offices and considering Shaul's instructions to be "special cases" to groups with known issues. For me, it's the only way to reconcile those verses with the full corpus of scripture.
For those interested, we have a lot of discussion about this issue: Must a deacon be monogamous what does the greek heis mia en mean here
and What in the world is an episkopos (bishop) not sure if there was one dedicated to elders yet. However you slice it though, I agree polygamists are not excluded being judges, elders,

Ancient Paths said:
I'm curious you guys' thoughts on the roles of judges and elders, especially as it transitions into the apostolic period. Shaul (Paul), to my recollection, never mentions judges, so I get the impression the roles, particularly as exercised in the time of the kings, became conflated...
Here is why I am curious: If the NT sees elders as functioning as judges (when necessary) then how does that affect our understanding of NT elders being 'husband of one' when clearly the Judges had multiple wives.
Now, I believe for various reasons that Christendom misunderstands and misreads Shaul on the natter, but this seems another line of insight into what Shaul was actually saying if the role of judge is rolled into the elder/bishop categories...
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Among the Jewish community the system of judges still exists. For a Rabbi to become a "judge" he must study an extra 3-5 years in Yeshiva to obtain the credential.
The various "Messianic" Jewish religious infrastructures also have judges in place though not on the level suggested in the Torah. Some organizations just have 1 "beit din", judicial court. Shaul is not arguing against the torah-established system in 1 Corinthians 6:1–9; he is, however, arguing against using the secular judicial system. This is actually how it works with Rabbis. The rabbi can determine low level stuff for his congregants and resolve disputes. Tough stuff gets referred to a local beit din. For torah-keepers, I think we absolutely need to have this system in effect. For low level stuff, it should be handled by the congregation as Shaul suggests; for more difficult matters it should go to the local beit din and up from there. Also, whenever we have a dispute with a non-believer, we can ask if they are willing to settle it in the beit-din system. Many Gentiles actually agree to allow the Jewish religious courts decide matters in issues of conflict. There are ways to make the decision legally-binding as "dispute resolution" but @andrew could speak more to that.
One other nice result of having batei-din is they help to preserve wisdom for those concerned with applying the Torah to modern living. Instead of ad-hoc decisions being made each generation, there is a line of reasoning and thought which develops which can be applied to situation xyz without having to reinterpret the wheel as it were...

A word about language...
Regarding שופט šōpeṭ (shofet) "judge". Many Hebrew words have other meanings depending on context. Usually folks are eager to jump in and they learn the "glosses" which is the meaning which occurs most often for a word. A word most people know צדק ṣedeq is glossed as "righteous". The thing is, it also translates as "justice", "vindication" and in some cases "meadow" (yeah like with grass and stuff). It can mean a lot of other stuff too (accuracy in Leviticus), loyalty to a community, well-being, etc.

In my experience, this has been the hardest part of Biblical Hebrew, learning all the contextual variants a word has throughout the various genres, phases, and dialects of the Biblical language. I think one could learn 4 modern languages to conversational fluency in the time it takes to master the Tanakh because of this issue.
With our word shofet we have also some variances. The main one that comes to mind after the primary gloss "judge" is "ruler".
this distinction plays out more clearly in the Book of shoftiym where we get Samson, not exactly a pillar of jurisprudence, labelled as a "judge" in the English versions.
So I think it's helpful to ask "now is this an actual legal judge the bible is discussing in case xyz or is it just a ruler" as in Daniel
שֹׁפְטֵינוּ אֲשֶׁר שְׁפָטוּנוּ Da 9:12, "(he spoke against) our rulers who govern us".

Nice timely thread @Ancient Paths , since this past week's torah portion was "Judges".
 
Last edited:
IshChayil said:
So I think it's helpful to ask "now is this an actual legal judge the bible is discussing in case xyz or is it just a ruler" as in Daniel
Click to expand...

Is there really any difference? A separation of the judicial power from executive power is a feature of more complex systems of governing but not at all the natural way. You see examples of them being tied together all throughout scripture.
 
rockfox said:
Is there really any difference? A separation of the judicial power from executive power is a feature of more complex systems of governing but not at all the natural way. You see examples of them being tied together all throughout scripture.
Click to expand...
Only as different as the words: judge, ruler, governor are in English right?
What I mean is I get your point but again, Samson wasn't no master of jurisprudence.
There is certainly a difference from that kind of judge, and the Apostle Paul sitting in a sanhedrin casting his vote for someone to die.
To me, it feels awkward sometimes to use our English word "judge" for some of these rules in the bible.
 
Judge seems like an awkward word to use for the characters in the book of Judges as well. My impression is they're more akin to the dictators of the old Roman Republic. But I could be wrong about that, been a while since I've read it.

Our modern words and concepts don't map well here. Really, this is an area of Christian theology not well explored.
 
I get the impression that the judges were simply people who were accepted as authorities by those around them as they were respected for one reason or another. Some may have been accepted due to their military might (Samson), others due to their wisdom & relationship with God (Deborah), others maybe just because they were family heads. It seems very fluid, with multiple overlapping judges covering varying areas, and times without any judge present at all - I presume because the arrangements were so informal. I don't read them as being dictators, I think that if they tried that people would have stopped listening to them. I see them as men (mostly) who people went to voluntarily to resolve disputes and for leadership in times of war, because they respected them enough to know that both parties to the dispute would comply by their decisions, or all people in the army would be willing to obey them.
 
And, many were direct appointees of God.... Gideon, Sampson....

Definitely fluid, but the function really seems to overlap parts of NT elder.
 
In my mind, this description (FollowingHim’s) is the perfect match to what a New Testament elder is supposed to emulate and example. @Keith Martin had a great verse the other day. 2 Corinthians 1:24. The apostles weren’t supposed to have dominion, but be specially gifted helpers in the gospel.
 
Sketches of Jewish Life in the Times of Christ

Alfred Edersheim

Chapter 18



The special qualifications for the office of Sanhedrist, mentioned in Rabbinical writings, are such as to remind us of the directions of St. Paul to Timothy (1 Tim 3: 1-10). A member of the Sanhedrim must be wise, modest, God-fearing, truthful, not greedy of filthy lucre, given to hospitality, kindly, not a gambler, nor a usurer, nor one who traded in the produce of Sabbatical years, nor yet one who indulged in unlawful games (Sanh. iii. 3). They were called “Sekenim,” “elders” (Luke 7: 3), “Memunim,” “rulers” (Mark 5: 22), “Parnasin,” “feeders, overseers, shepherds of the flock” (Acts 20: 28; 1 Peter 5: 2), and “Manhigei,” “guides” (Heb 13: 7). They were under the presidency and supreme rule of an “Archisynagogos,” or “Rosh-ha-Cheneseth,” “head of the synagogue” (Yom. vii. 1; Sot. vii. 7), who sometimes seems to have even exercised sole authority. The designation occurs frequently in the New Testament (Matt 9: 18; Mark 5: 35, 36, 38; Luke 8: 41, 49, 13: 14; Acts 18: 8, 17). The inferior functions in the synagogue devolved on the “chassan,” or “minister” (Luke 4: 20). In course of time, however, the “chassanim” combined with their original duties the office of schoolmaster; and at present they lead both the singing and the devotions of the synagogue. This duty originally devolved not on any fixed person, but whoever was chosen might for the time being act as “Sheliach Zibbur,” or “legate of the congregation.” Most modern writers have imagined, that the expression “angel of the Church,” in the epistles to the seven churches in the book of Revelation, was used in allusion to this ancient arrangement of the synagogue. But the fact that the “Sheliach Zibbur” represented not an office but a function, renders this view untenable. Besides, in that case, the corresponding Greek expression would rather have been “apostle” than “angel of the Church.” Possibly, however, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews may refer to it, when he designates the Lord Jesus “the Apostle and High-Priest of our profession” (Heb 3: 1). Besides these functionaries, we also read of “Gabaei Zedakah,” or collectors of charity, to whom the Talmud (B. Bathra, 8 b) by a jeu de mots applies the promise that they “shall be as the stars for ever and ever” (Dan 12: 3), since they lead many to “righteousness.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top