Kingdom courts

[FollowingHim]

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?

In general, the moral matters of Torah are upheld by all branches of Christianity. The only differences are smaller matters that would not be brought before a judge. Nobody's going to take someone to a judge for eating pork, but they will take them to a judge over stealing their chickens, and a judge from any denominational background would judge the same in that case.

 

[FollowingHim]

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?

Note also that this comes down to people individuals personally respect. If someone was unable to respect a Christian elder as a judge just because they disagreed on food laws or feast days, their priorities in life would be completely messed up, as they'd be putting theological agreement before wisdom and general morality. So anyone rejecting a judge on that basis (either because they were or were not a Torah-keeper) should be quickly shown the error of their ways.

However, in the event that someone could not get over this sectarian bias, that's when you bring in multiple judges.
Party A: I want this to be judged by Brother John.
Barty B: I want this to be judged by Rabbi Fred.
Solution: Bring it to both John and Fred, and ask them to come up with a single joint judgement - which both parties will obey as the judge they respect agreed with it. 99% of the time that would settle the matter.
In those rare cases that they substantially disagree: No judgement has been reached, the matter remains unresolved. Both parties simply need to find another judge (or other judges) they can respect and try again.

 

[steve]

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?

I was going to point out that the distinction is your invention, but Samuel has very adequately addressed this.

 

[NickF]

Heinlein addressed this judge idea very well in a book called “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” it’s a fantastic book.

 

[DawoodSaar]

Please show me the error of my ways then. I refuse to heed a judge that would disagree with my King on something the King calls an abomination. Why would I go to a judge who throws out Laws because he doesn't want to be convicted of them himself? Why would I ever go to a judge who doesn't judge according to the Law? Such a judge isn't fit to judge, because the second it is ok to throw out one of the King's Law, then that man sets himself up as greater than the King. Such a treason seems like a death sentence to me.

If the idea that we can rely on our elders to judge well is to be seriously considered, then we cannot simply leave it to the people to pick elders who tickle their ears. THAT itself is what creates sectarian division. The only group which can have unified beliefs is one which doesn't pick and choose what Laws of the King they follow. Everyone else would divide themselves up into camps based on which manmade laws to add or which King-decreed Laws remove.

Clearly, whatever pastors are doing in churches today is not in agreement with scripture in regards to polygyny. We all agree there. The courts of the U.S. and other places also prohibit marriage which is not prohibited by the King. So should we go to pastors and have them as judges who add that manmade prohibition, a doctrine of demons no less, to the Commandments of the King? I think we all agree, no.

What then of those pastors who promote homosexuality? We all agree they are removing the limitations of the Commands of the King when He says a man should not lie with a male. An abomination which the Lord says such who do that will be cast out.

Those who ADD to the Law are not fit to be judges.
Those who REMOVE from the Law are not fit to be judges.

So the only ones left are those who do not add and do not remove from the Law. They are fit to be judges, because they know it well and protect the Law from those who try to corrupt it.

This is why I'm excited to see what happens here. Let the Lord be approved in His wisdom and judgement. Because the fundamental argument of bibfam is "poly is not prohibited by the Lord. Where there is no prohibition there is freedom." I agree! The counterpoint is the sticking point though; "where there is prohibition... Meh, I do what I want!"

 

[FollowingHim]

If you try to set up a formal set of theological standards for someone to be a judge, and a formal process to choose judges, then you no longer have a decentralised informal system and lose most of the benefits of this. You'll sink into church politics and never get anywhere.

Remember, Samson was a judge. Samson, one of whose major claims to fame is that he slept with a prostitute and then escaped from her town by tearing off the city gates. Was he a model of theological and moral perfection? Certainly not. Yet he was a judge.

Keep it simple. Choose a judge that all parties to the dispute believe will render a fair judgement in that specific case. That is all.

If both parties want a Torah-keeping judge, for all the reasons you outline above, go for it.

If you're in a dispute with someone of a different sectarian persuasion however (which is very likely), you'll have to either be more flexible on this, or use a panel of multiple judges as I suggested above. If you're arguing over whether someone stole your hens and how much compensation they should pay if they are found guilty, then all you need in a judge with regards to Torah is an understanding of the specific parts of the Law which relate to private property and theft. You should both be able to easily find such a person, provided you don't expect that person to have exactly the same theology in other areas as yourself, while your opponent simultaneously expects them to have exactly the same theology as them.

 

[Mark C]

There's a lot of smoke in this thread that obscures the real point.

What "we have" are NOT "courts of law." And I've spent over a decade doing the "Come out of her, My people" Shows to make that point. The proof, the evidence, is literally "legion." (yeah...)

Do you have to ask permission to even OWN (check a law dictionary!) a "projectile-based self-defense tool"? If so, don't kid yourself - the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to you. Why not? (BTW - words matter, too. Don't try to drive without a "license" in a "motor vehicle.")

I could (and have...) go on. What is the "Supreme Law of the Land," and why is it no longer relevant? The answer has several names, but it boils down to "private law." "Choice of Law" is a term you'll see in law dictionaries. AND in Deuteronomy chapter 30!!!

But most people do NOT KNOW that they have made a "choice of law" - usually by default - and "traded essential liberty for a little temporary security." (OR - to use the Genesis metaphor - their "birthright of liberty" for a cup of pottage. Red, red stew.)

"You are his slave whom you submit yourselves servants to obey..." says Paul. (Romans 6:16) The concept is government "by agreement," But few know what they have signed up for, traded for, or even "made a deal with the devil" for.

Let me start at the beginning: (of the thread, and the failure to see the problem)

Re: Marriage -
"Whether people have the license or not isn't the issue..."

Wrong, WRONG, Dead Wrong! "It's about Who is to be Master, that is all." (Yeah, that COULD almost be Scripture, Yahushua says it similarly, but in this case it's Lewis Carroll. )

When you SUBMIT (and a 'license' is a prime example, there are others, perhaps less deadly) - you have MADE A CHOICE of LAW. And - it's NOT YHVH's!!!!!

"By the authority vested in me by the State of ...pick a fake god...I now pronounce you man and wife" [or tranny and beast; whatever...the more anti-Scripture, the more obvious...]

WE HAVE ALL THE Authority AND Power WE NEED!!!!!

Ever heard of "binding arbitration," by contract. "Choice of law" clauses? Yeah - even the abomination of sharia. They're alternatives to the "UCC," 'law of the sea,' Red Amendment, etc, etc, "private law" that are actually protected by the ONE single piece of that Supreme Law that still actually exists...the Right to Contract. If you know it, and what it means.

And Who the Real Master is. You can't serve two, after all...

 

[FollowingHim]

Ever heard of "binding arbitration," by contract. "Choice of law" clauses? Yeah - even the abomination of sharia. They're alternatives to the "UCC," 'law of the sea,' Red Amendment, etc, etc, "private law" that are actually protected by the ONE single piece of that Supreme Law that still actually exists...the Right to Contract. If you know it, and what it means.

Is your point that we can establish true judges of God's law and have them decide disputes, in full accordance with the law of the land, by calling the process and result "binding arbitration", at which point it falls under contract law?

 

[Twitch]

“Appoint judges and officers within all your gates, which יהוה your Elohim is giving you, according to your tribes. And they shall judge the people with righteous right-ruling. “Do not distort right-ruling. Do not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.
Deḇarim (Deuteronomy) 16:18‭-‬19


As you see, the people appoint judges among their tribes. If you marry by marriage state license, and thus the state becomes a party to your marriage. As a result, the state judges have authority because you place covenant with them.

IF, however, you enter into marriage otherwise, you can subject yourselves to final decision by community appointed judges (until the return to the land (if that is your view). By not complying with judgement, the community which vested authority can essentially remove themselves from fellowship with that person. In the land, the torah leaves absolute fully legal authority with these judges, but in the gentile nations it is unlikely to gain ansolute authority.

I suggest, however, that a judge is not required for a get, so who needs em?

 

[Mark C]

Is your point that we can establish true judges of God's law and have them decide disputes, in full accordance with the law of the land, by calling the process and result "binding arbitration", at which point it falls under contract law?

Well, actually, one of several points. (Which is how Scripture works anyway... )

We must be wary of vows, or oaths, contracts, or even self-curses (like Yakov did Rachel) that "come back to bite us," and subject us to "another jurisdiction, foreign to our constitution and laws," or more specifically, "another master."

Licenses, agreements, even acquiescence ("failure to object in a timely manner") can all do that. So can the use of "dishonest weights" (contracts specifying $$$, or terms that YHVH specifically calls 'abomination'.)

But, yes, just as we can opt IN (usually in ignorance, or "lack of knowledge") - we can opt OUT. (...come out of her, My people...) Specific performance contracts CAN specify arbitration, choice of law [ie, His, or even specific renderings] or even select and name specific judges, in the event of a later dispute.

If (and I urge that we DO) we "come out of her," it's important to know what we are going INTO. (Thus my emphasis. I've even been called things approaching 'anal-retentive' for the care to understand His instruction as Written, but perhaps this helps explain why.)


"If you don't KNOW your Rights, and stand on them, you don't have any."




PS> My specific references to things like "common law" - and what might be called "Contract 101" - are common to most English-speaking countries, that have that heritage. They are specifically referenced in the Constitution for these united States, based on the principles explicitly outlined in the Declaration. Scripture predates and trumps them all, of course, and is clear that we have a choice which CANNOT be "aliened" by mere men.

So, I'm not sure about the nuances 'down under.' But the Scripture part remains clear.

 

[PeteR]

Excellent, excellent discussion.

To look back at the judges selected in Israel, we must remember Israel was a patriarchal tribal FAMILY. In Exodus 18 the judges were selected or appointed as heads of 10, 50, 100, 1000.

Critically, they were patriarchs in the family and therefore had a vested interest in the protection and well-being of the family.. .

I believe Paul's appointment of elders was a pragmatic, short-term solution until patriarchs would rise from the ranks of the ingrafted families to lead and judge. And, this is where we must go if we are Biblical Families. It is less about poly than it is about patriarchy and right rulership.

 

[Shiloh.F]

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.

This is essentially the same thoughts and conclusion I have recently had. I’ll throw out a real example for you all. As I start looking more and more at the possibility of God adding another woman to our family, the legal liability and baggage of having a marriage certificate with my current wife becomes more clear. However I think a formal framework for the relationship between a man and woman is both biblical and valuable. As we are having our 10yr anniversary this year, I have been thinking of drawing up a new set of vows, statement of understanding, and possibly a legal trust that would replace our legal marriage and put us on a much more biblically based foundation.
In order to give it real weight, I am planning on asking several men that I have respect for witness it, and they could act as judges if any serious disputes arose. Example if I ever lost my mind and began physically abusing my wife, she would have someone to go to who I would hopefully listen to before she had to go to the state for protection. Or if I took another wife and then failed to provide the food, clothes, and intimacy required in Exo 21:10, there would be respected brothers on speed dial to hold me accountable.

 

[Michael Moon]

Remember, Samson was a judge. Samson, one of whose major claims to fame is that he slept with a prostitute and then escaped from her town by tearing off the city gates. Was he a model of theological and moral perfection? Certainly not. Yet he was a judge.

He was also chosen before his birth as evidenced by an angel appearing to his parents. I don't think we need to make anything in the book of Judges a requirement or standard for a judiciary system or the qualifications of the judges therein.

We are not God, and I don't think any reasoning on our part would excuse us putting in place a judge like Samson.

Keep it simple. Choose a judge that all parties to the dispute believe will render a fair judgement in that specific case. That is all.

Could we maybe hear from some non-TK members here on this idea? In my personal life I don't know anyone who would be open to the idea of "Kingdom Courts" and judges who are not Torah Keepers.

In general, the moral matters of Torah are upheld by all branches of Christianity.

I don't think this is true, and the distinction between moral matters and non-moral matters is another way of trying to raise some portions of the Law above others.

The only differences are smaller matters that would not be brought before a judge. Nobody's going to take someone to a judge for eating pork, but they will take them to a judge over stealing their chickens, and a judge from any denominational background would judge the same in that case.

What if a leader is found to be eating pork? What if a non-TK gives bacon to someone's child without their knowledge (malicious or otherwise)? What about Sabbath breaking?

I don't agree with judges allowing people to opt in or out of whatever portions of the Law they wish to follow. This could work if all the judges are TK, and willing to be lenient with the brethren who are not there yet. But you don't ever compromise the truth, and putting judges in place who say it is okay to break the Law is a very bad idea.

 

[FollowingHim]

@StudentofHim, the problem is that you are wanting someone to "put judges in place". Who is the authority who gets to appoint these judges? Why should anyone else consider them an authority?

You could go to immense effort to set up a whole heirarchy of Torah-keeping believers, make an executive authority to appoint judges, appoint a load of godly judges to serve everywhere, and then find the whole thing could achieve nothing because:

• Only a very tiny portion of the Christian population recognised them as legitimate judges - just the Torah-keepers. So if a Torah-keeping man steals your chickens you can take him to that judge. If anyone else does, you can't, as whatever judgement they render nobody else will follow because nobody else respects, or even knows anything about, this man the Torah-keepers are claiming is a "judge". There will be almost no circumstances where you ever find these judges useful.
• The whole structure will be an obvious threat to state power and will bring down legal reprisals.

However technically correct it may sound to you, the entire thing will fail to achieve any good and be a pointless exercise.

To look back at the judges selected in Israel, we must remember Israel was a patriarchal tribal FAMILY. In Exodus 18 the judges were selected or appointed as heads of 10, 50, 100, 1000.

Critically, they were patriarchs in the family and therefore had a vested interest in the protection and well-being of the family.. .

That is far more practical. Forget about appointing judges from on high. But, when a dispute arises, take it to the elders - the heads of families. Take the chicken-thief before his own grandfather and other local Christian elders that he already respects and will feel obliged to obey.

I'm saying don't try to find the perfect judges and then try and get people to accept them. Find the people who are already accepted and make them the judges. That is far closer to the model in Exodus, where the men who were already accepted as family leaders, and were probably already functioning as informal judges for that reason, were simply recognised officially.

 

[MemeFan]

If you try to set up a formal set of theological standards for someone to be a judge, and a formal process to choose judges, then you no longer have a decentralised informal system and lose most of the benefits of this. You'll sink into church politics and never get anywhere.

Remember, Samson was a judge. Samson, one of whose major claims to fame is that he slept with a prostitute and then escaped from her town by tearing off the city gates. Was he a model of theological and moral perfection? Certainly not. Yet he was a judge.

Keep it simple. Choose a judge that all parties to the dispute believe will render a fair judgement in that specific case. That is all.

If both parties want a Torah-keeping judge, for all the reasons you outline above, go for it.

If you're in a dispute with someone of a different sectarian persuasion however (which is very likely), you'll have to either be more flexible on this, or use a panel of multiple judges as I suggested above. If you're arguing over whether someone stole your hens and how much compensation they should pay if they are found guilty, then all you need in a judge with regards to Torah is an understanding of the specific parts of the Law which relate to private property and theft. You should both be able to easily find such a person, provided you don't expect that person to have exactly the same theology in other areas as yourself, while your opponent simultaneously expects them to have exactly the same theology as them.

I have done some reading of alternative legal system.

@FollowingHim does describe good how naturally judges are found.

 

[MemeFan]

As you see, the people appoint judges among their tribes. If you marry by marriage state license, and thus the state becomes a party to your marriage. As a result, the state judges have authority because you place covenant with them.

You are too much into democracy. In any society there are always elites. In time of war warrior elite will be called upon, in commercial issues business elite will have most influence...

Judge job is to solve disputes between people in most fair way possible. Nothing more. Naturally, judging elite will be people with best people, research (to find facts of case) and moral knowledge skills.

 

[MemeFan]

Excellent, excellent discussion.

To look back at the judges selected in Israel, we must remember Israel was a patriarchal tribal FAMILY. In Exodus 18 the judges were selected or appointed as heads of 10, 50, 100, 1000.

Critically, they were patriarchs in the family and therefore had a vested interest in the protection and well-being of the family.. .

I believe Paul's appointment of elders was a pragmatic, short-term solution until patriarchs would rise from the ranks of the ingrafted families to lead and judge. And, this is where we must go if we are Biblical Families. It is less about poly than it is about patriarchy and right rulership.

Tribal Somalia uses Xeer legal system.

You must be part of clan to receive protection. Disputes within clan are solved by clan elders.

Disputes between clans are solved by clan elders (of all affected clans) making a deal.

That is my understanding.

I know for sure that being outside of clan is problematic. If somebody steals from you won't receive help in finding thief.

 

[MemeFan]

There is also one important fact missed here.

Without state courts all legal proceedings would draw naturally whole community into. Let's be real. Most disputes don't require judges. We all have disagreements and people usually work them on their own.

You don't send laywers for late payment, but for persistent late payment. If somebody breaks your fence you can directly with offender make a deal how much repair will cost him.

So, in court system will finish heavy cases. Murder, rape, bigger stealing. It would be in interest of community to find guilty. And in this cases how much procedure is fair will be also important.

Also missed is fact that everybody would know all laws. Laws would be nothing more than society's moral code. Without parlaments and government agencies nobody could make rules everybody had to follow (regulation).

 

[Michael Moon]

@StudentofHim, the problem is that you are wanting someone to "put judges in place". Who is the authority who gets to appoint these judges? Why should anyone else consider them an authority?

I didn't say that. I agree with that the elders should simply be the patriarchs. If a group of Godly men got together to keep the law and help others to do so, then they are the elders. If one of them begins to stray, the others are to hold him accountable. We simply don't have legal power in the nations we live in. This would have to be a voluntary system where people agree to be under the leadership of said elders.

You could go to immense effort to set up a whole heirarchy of Torah-keeping believers, make an executive authority to appoint judges, appoint a load of godly judges to serve everywhere, and then find the whole thing could achieve nothing because:

One elder for every ten families. I would start at the bottom and would keep it loose. No "executive authority". Start it and if it is only ever ten families fine, if it becomes twenty raise up a new elder. If it becomes a hundred, then the elders should voluntarily submit to elders over them as per the system of Jethro. I would urge everyone to always have other people with the same "authority" as them. An elder over ten should have other elders over ten that keep him accountable. An elder over fifty should remain accountable to the elders under him and other elders over fifty. Etc.

• Only a very tiny portion of the Christian population recognised them as legitimate judges - just the Torah-keepers. So if a Torah-keeping man steals your chickens you can take him to that judge. If anyone else does, you can't, as whatever judgement they render nobody else will follow because nobody else respects, or even knows anything about, this man the Torah-keepers are claiming is a "judge". There will be almost no circumstances where you ever find these judges useful.

Disputes will rise up in any community. If a person refuses to submit to just authority, then take it up with the pagans. You cannot have judges who submit to the Law and judges who ignore it in any system.

• The whole structure will be an obvious threat to state power and will bring down legal reprisals.

I fail to see how? In pagan nations we wouldn't be able to perform certain punishments really, but we can still excommunicate. Most other punishments would have to be voluntary in any system. Unless you would like to create a nation-state via rebellion?

However technically correct it may sound to you, the entire thing will fail to achieve any good and be a pointless exercise.

Based off of what? What do you constitute as failure?

That is far more practical. Forget about appointing judges from on high. But, when a dispute arises, take it to the elders - the heads of families. Take the chicken-thief before his own grandfather and other local Christian elders that he already respects and will feel obliged to obey.

I have no problem with that, that's how the system is supposed to work. The leaders should be evident among the people.

I'm saying don't try to find the perfect judges and then try and get people to accept them. Find the people who are already accepted and make them the judges. That is far closer to the model in Exodus, where the men who were already accepted as family leaders, and were probably already functioning as informal judges for that reason, were simply recognised officially.

I agree with this as well. Part of what you think I am arguing I am not.

I agree the elders should be evident and selected (or recognized) from the already established leadership within the families.

Seeing as they mostly don't exist now, (with the tearing down of patriarchy and familial leadership as a whole) the only hope for many of us is in becoming those leaders and doing our best to convince others.

Would a person who ignores the Law of God be recognized in leadership over his own family? Yes. Most certainly. But would he be recognized as a leader over other families? I don't think that would be wise.

 

[DawoodSaar]

Ran across this in Daniel 7. Satan/the Beast implements a change in the times and seasons (cough, Sunday, Christmas.) to divert worship from the Most High and redirect it to himself. But! The Courts judge against him and he is cast out at the end.

That courts are who win in the end gives us some confidence that if we start moving that way, then we will be operating toward the end goal of our Lord.