We need to start using our own court system.
State's court aren't helping, so why keep using it?
-
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.
Kingdom courts
- Thread starter MemeFan
- Start date
State's court aren't helping, so why keep using it?
I don't see how creating our own court system would change the level of commitment to relationships(?) Please explain.
Sharia Law is effectively the law of the land in some cities of Germany. They went from rabid anti-semites murdering in the millions to being taken over by semitic people in just two or three generations.
The women under Sharia law rarely ever use the German court system to divorce. There may be extenuating circumstances there, (Not being a legal immigrant, extradition, likelihood of death by "ex"-husband's family...)
There may be value in practicing judicial powers now. The tribe of Dan will judge in the future, so the elders of that tribe at least need some practice in judging according Torah. I for one applaud anyone who does take up such a role in a worthy manner. There's a few Biblical legal questions I could use an elder with good judgement to help me through.
But having a selection of elders to arbitrate according to Torah/Bible would actually be an amazingly effective tool, both for helping determine righteousness in difficult cases, as well as to showcase good biblical scholarship for anyone else outside the community to look in and see that such a judicial system is holistic and healthy.
It wouldn't have any police power until at least one whole town is ideologically unified in accepting that biblically-based court system. So such things only currently exist in Israel it seems.
A healthy legal court would create a much healthier environment for local dating and mating by incentivizing good behavior. Divorce wouldn't be as common, marriage fraud would be litagated, spousal abandonment would be punished, and all kinds of petty squables could be squashed.
We say we follow a diety of Order, a perfect Judge. Shouldn't we want to emulate Him in His good Judgement as well?
The women under Sharia law rarely ever use the German court system to divorce. There may be extenuating circumstances there, (Not being a legal immigrant, extradition, likelihood of death by "ex"-husband's family...)
There may be value in practicing judicial powers now. The tribe of Dan will judge in the future, so the elders of that tribe at least need some practice in judging according Torah. I for one applaud anyone who does take up such a role in a worthy manner. There's a few Biblical legal questions I could use an elder with good judgement to help me through.
But having a selection of elders to arbitrate according to Torah/Bible would actually be an amazingly effective tool, both for helping determine righteousness in difficult cases, as well as to showcase good biblical scholarship for anyone else outside the community to look in and see that such a judicial system is holistic and healthy.
It wouldn't have any police power until at least one whole town is ideologically unified in accepting that biblically-based court system. So such things only currently exist in Israel it seems.
A healthy legal court would create a much healthier environment for local dating and mating by incentivizing good behavior. Divorce wouldn't be as common, marriage fraud would be litagated, spousal abandonment would be punished, and all kinds of petty squables could be squashed.
We say we follow a diety of Order, a perfect Judge. Shouldn't we want to emulate Him in His good Judgement as well?
Paul actually commands keeping disputes between brethren and not using governmental courts. So we have both Old and New Testament precedent.
All that is lacking is the will. And that's really the problem. Back when society/family/church all fought against divorce we didn't have much divorce; few women will do it when her friends aren't egging her on and Daddy is waiting to pick up the slack and the Pastor's standing there providing religious cover. Get back to everyone just saying 'no you will not leave him' and we've won half the battle.
All that is lacking is the will. And that's really the problem. Back when society/family/church all fought against divorce we didn't have much divorce; few women will do it when her friends aren't egging her on and Daddy is waiting to pick up the slack and the Pastor's standing there providing religious cover. Get back to everyone just saying 'no you will not leave him' and we've won half the battle.
Bingo
Matthew 24:38-38 (KJV) For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
It’ll pretty much stay lacking.
Well... You have yourselves a site here with quite a few of the old-timers who are well versed in Bible Law. Just point at the best and call those people judges now. Used to be that just a bunch of old guys sitting in the city gate got their kicks in retirement by judging cases. Several of you here are already bored and want the job because you already jump on here to help arbitrate the questions posed. Some of you actually are qualified for such a position.
And yes, a good judiciary supports healthy 'dating' just like in Ruth when Boaz brought the near of kin before the elders. They were witnesses to the legal proceedings of acquiring Naomi as a wife and her estate. Oh, and the complication of the Moabitess tag-along.
And yes, a good judiciary supports healthy 'dating' just like in Ruth when Boaz brought the near of kin before the elders. They were witnesses to the legal proceedings of acquiring Naomi as a wife and her estate. Oh, and the complication of the Moabitess tag-along.
We will always have disputes.
And court is nothing more than formal diapute machanism. Is it only special because it can authorize legal use of force. This isn't our situation now.
@rockfox provides answer:
Christians in Roman empire didn't use goverment courts. They functioned on reputation mechanism. Access was voluntary and if you refuse court's decision it would make your reputation very bad.
Who would trust you if you refuse judgement of someone neutral? And since court is public, judge must be truly fair, otherwise his service will stop be used.
In same way more or less have functioned court system in anarchic societies. Remember, in such society there is no monopoly on force.
I have found Twitter thread about court system in today's Saudi Arabia before modernization by Ottomans in 19/20th century. People did receive, often free, religious education which included how court functions and what proper judgement are. This enabled both widespread knowledge what is right and capability that anyone educated can function as judge.
So judge was somebody working as judge part-time and his fees were essentialy something part-time. This provided both financial indepedence of judge making him more fair. Also since many people were educated in court system they could check judges. It was obvious when judge was wrong.
Best system would be something like above.
Next time when there is relationship dispute, if you can, make divorce (except case of cheating wife) non-started. Example doing it good:
Am I Enabling My Cheating Husband’s Sin by Staying with Him?
Our modern Christian culture actually looks down on and shames women who believe they do not have a right to divorce their husbands for their whoremongering ways. The real shame is not on these wom…
biblicalgenderroles.com
Off course, be mostly constructive when helping relationships in trouble.
Yes, that's always a relationship problem but the relationships that survive are those where the disputes are resolved and overcome. It has never been right for Christians to go to the ungodly to resolve their disputes. We don't need to create a new court system; we need to stop using the wrong one and do what God has always said about resolving problems. Unfortunately the real issue hasn't changed; do we act like the ungodly (disobeying God) or obey God? Are we committed to relationships enough to fix them the way we are supposed to fix them or are we just like the ungodly?
Mathew 18
Yes, and Proverbs 25:9, 1 Cor. 6, etc.
My problem with Matthew 18 is that it turns justice into a democracy.
For instance:
One person in a church says that the Bible does not prohibit polygamy. One of the parishioners tells him to shut up. He doesn't so the parishioner goes to the pastor who tells the person to shut up. Then they go to a committee which has the person thrown out of the church for not going along with the majority.
And the person is right and the majority is wrong.
The first step in a Matthew 18 proceeding must be to first determine if the person in question is right or wrong. Because one person can be right and everyone else can be wrong.
Here's another example of why I think the Matthew 18 process is flawed or incomplete: Because that's what happened to Jesus.
No system that involves humans will ever be perfect, any of them would need to be used judiciously.
Throwing a system out because of an outlier about one particular belief doesn’t solve the majority of the problems and therefore isn’t a good plan.
I don't object to Matthew 18 in its entirety. I'm just saying there's an obligation to make sure the person being prosecuted in a Matthew 18 process is actually wrong.
Just because a majority doesn't like someone doesn't make the person wrong.
Definitely.
The worst thing that they can do is to shun the person who they adjudicate against, which is what is going to happen anyway in the case of poly vs monogamy.
Christianity survived Roman empire they build parallel institutions. Court system is must, without it nothing looking like a civilization is possible.
Second, legal system exist moment two people are together. Elements of legal system are who will decide (judge), judgement rules (if you have done crime A punishment is Z) and enforcement mechanism (done by police today). It's inevitable because disputes are inevitable.
This isn't just about relationships, but whole society. And it matters how it works.
You maybe be able to quote Bible how judges are supposed to be impartial and just. Ok, which mechanism will insure that? I don't know any such description in Bible. So, we will have to figure out (with Lord's help off course) mechanism.
If any of you want to live in Christian society we have to have our own legal system. How can society be Christian if, for example, atheists make our marriage rules? Again, not everything is written and there is a loootttt to learn.
I must say, I'm intensely curious how this conversation goes! Being new here, and recognizing this directly ties to the two main camps of this community. One which says the Law/Torah is still relevant for today would promote a judiciary based heavily on Torah. The other which denies the Law as still in force and would generally be more inclined to reject a judiciary.
Might I recommend a new thread? This topic seems to be one that would like completely take over a thread, and I have a feeling the topic of online poly resources will continue to be needed.
Might I recommend a new thread? This topic seems to be one that would like completely take over a thread, and I have a feeling the topic of online poly resources will continue to be needed.
Done!
It is in the NT that the recommendation is made to refrain from taking a brother into a gentile court.
I don’t think that a Torah vs non-Torah discussion is relevant here.
The judiciary shown in the book of Judges was clearly very informal. People who were respected are said to have "judged" Israel. Would anyone have appointed Samson as a judge? Or Deborah? Certainly not - neither was the sort of person a king or a (male) democratic voter base would appoint as a judge. Yet they were judges.
Clearly, people who were respected were informally approached by others to judge difficult matters, and those people who ended up being respected by enough individuals to end up doing a lot of judging were called "judges".
This seems the most natural, decentralised, Godly system of judges that we could possibly use.
Also, by being informal and decentralised, it has the massive advantage that it is not a formal system competing with the secular government. It really doesn't even exist as a "system" in any formal sense - just a few respected people whose opinions are asked of difficult matters, and who people tend to do what they say. There is no system for a government to hold up and accuse of treason or any other crime - just people asking other people's advice. There is nobody who can be targeted by the secular state other than individuals - and the occasional judge might be jailed on some excuse or another, but as each is completely separate from everyone else that does not take down the system - there is no system to take down.
Clearly, people who were respected were informally approached by others to judge difficult matters, and those people who ended up being respected by enough individuals to end up doing a lot of judging were called "judges".
This seems the most natural, decentralised, Godly system of judges that we could possibly use.
Also, by being informal and decentralised, it has the massive advantage that it is not a formal system competing with the secular government. It really doesn't even exist as a "system" in any formal sense - just a few respected people whose opinions are asked of difficult matters, and who people tend to do what they say. There is no system for a government to hold up and accuse of treason or any other crime - just people asking other people's advice. There is nobody who can be targeted by the secular state other than individuals - and the occasional judge might be jailed on some excuse or another, but as each is completely separate from everyone else that does not take down the system - there is no system to take down.
That is similar to my understanding of an elder. One who survived long enough that everyone else wants to live that long too. Retirement in the olden days looked alot like those old guys that hang out at Wafflehouse talking politics.
Those are who I'd make my pick for judges. And yes, it can be highly informal, as almost all things in the Kindom seem to be. There's so much room for creativity between 'do' and 'do not.'
As for the need for Torah vs. not. What other moral system do you hold these judges to to decide if their advice is worth listening to?
Those are who I'd make my pick for judges. And yes, it can be highly informal, as almost all things in the Kindom seem to be. There's so much room for creativity between 'do' and 'do not.'
As for the need for Torah vs. not. What other moral system do you hold these judges to to decide if their advice is worth listening to?