• 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

@StudentofHim, so I understand more clearly where you are coming from, who would be the judges in a community of non-Torah-keeping Christians - e.g. a group of Baptists?
Are you suggesting the appointment of Torah-keeping judges over non-Torah-keeping Christians? Or are you just saying that within the Torah-keeping community, the judges would need to keep Torah to be recognised as such?
 
StudentofHim said:
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.
Click to expand...

This isn't a TK vs. nonTK issue; Paul commanded this pointing out that we ourselves would be judging the angels, so why would we ever want to take our disputes before the ungodly?

I wouldn't be comfortable with most elders in most groups (TK or not) judging my disputes; too much worldliness and too little Christlikeness. But that isn't really an issue. Let me explain it this way...Arbitration.

Arbitration is legal in the US, probably any common law country. Very wildly practiced. Two people agree before entering a legal relationship (such as a commercial contract or business arrangement) agree to not use court but follow an arbitration process with 3rd party arbitrators (not judges). These are essentially private, voluntary jurisdiction courts. In a way that sounds a lot like the OT elder judges. Or Paul's NT church judges.

In our case I'd presume that whatever Christian community you are a part of is from whom judges would be drawn.
 
FollowingHim said:
@StudentofHim, so I understand more clearly where you are coming from, who would be the judges in a community of non-Torah-keeping Christians - e.g. a group of Baptists?
Click to expand...
Whatever elders they put forward I suppose, I would not be part of that decision.
FollowingHim said:
Are you suggesting the appointment of Torah-keeping judges over non-Torah-keeping Christians?
Click to expand...
I would suggest it, those communities would not. I think that all elders should have wisdom and understanding (specifically the Word). In those communities they would pick men who fit that standard (in their eyes).
FollowingHim said:
Or are you just saying that within the Torah-keeping community, the judges would need to keep Torah to be recognised as such?
Click to expand...
Yes.

My other statements were more expressing disbelief that a judiciary could properly function without Torah.
 
rockfox said:
Arbitration is legal in the US, probably any common law country. Very wildly practiced. Two people agree before entering a legal relationship (such as a commercial contract or business arrangement) agree to not use court but follow an arbitration process with 3rd party arbitrators (not judges). These are essentially private, voluntary jurisdiction courts. In a way that sounds a lot like the OT elder judges. Or Paul's NT church judges.
Click to expand...
Correct. This is essentially my point - well-stated - about the concept of contract and choice of law.

We already have the power and authority - if we have the knowledge - to SPECIFY 'choice of law' - and 'judges'.
 
Is this arbitration a means of ketubah/marriage then? A man may enter contract with the dad of a daughter, or an independent woman, saying she and he won't use secular courts but a third party panel to handle any dispute which may involve dissolution of the marriage? Then the contract may specify conduct and roles in the relationship, which may differ greatly from the host nation's marriage systems. Mainly, that patriarchal headship element.

Then, those judges/arbiters would judge based on the LAW set forth by the covenant of marriage between man and woman. That way judges could judge regardless of TK or not to some degree. Even a secular lawyer could judge such a limited scope form of law.
 
DawoodSaar said:
Is this arbitration a means of ketubah/marriage then? A man may enter contract with the dad of a daughter, or an independent woman, saying she and he won't use secular courts but a third party panel to handle any dispute which may involve dissolution of the marriage? Then the contract may specify conduct and roles in the relationship, which may differ greatly from the host nation's marriage systems. Mainly, that patriarchal headship element.

Then, those judges/arbiters would judge based on the LAW set forth by the covenant of marriage between man and woman. That way judges could judge regardless of TK or not to some degree. Even a secular lawyer could judge such a limited scope form of law.
Click to expand...
It can be put in the Kettubah, yes.
 
DawoodSaar said:
Is this arbitration a means of ketubah/marriage then? A man may enter contract with the dad of a daughter, or an independent woman, saying she and he won't use secular courts but a third party panel to handle any dispute which may involve dissolution of the marriage? Then the contract may specify conduct and roles in the relationship, which may differ greatly from the host nation's marriage systems. Mainly, that patriarchal headship element.

Then, those judges/arbiters would judge based on the LAW set forth by the covenant of marriage between man and woman. That way judges could judge regardless of TK or not to some degree. Even a secular lawyer could judge such a limited scope form of law.
Click to expand...

Yes it could be, so long as you don't get a marriage license too.

Just be aware that common law marriage states (de factor or de jure) will be a challenge; you may be able to contract around it though. So will the issue of child custody; you probably won't be able to contract around that though maybe you might to an extent.
 
MeganC said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe nothing new can override something Old and this means that everything must be seen using Torah and the Prophets to understand The New Testament.
 
MeganC said:
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.
Click to expand...
So Jesus was wrong to say this is how people should handle disputes?

The average person, who has no moral foundation, would end up with a democratic form of morality. The group decides what is best for the group, and they often think incorrectly. So yes, the average congregation that uses this system will eject good people. I guess we'll just have to be ready and waiting for when those good people get spit out of bad churches! We can take them in!

But, as you say, it must be determined what is right and what is wrong. Who decides that if not a judge? According to what standard if not a Law? If we have no basis to claim right and wrong, then how are we any better than those churches who kick people out for disagreeing with the majority?
 
It is my lives mission to Build G-ds Kingdom and even if none of us will ever see this and other nations fall I believe it is our responsibility to build something so that we might be a Light to others so they might Seek G-d!

Put away your sins and follow me! Even it we have many years to come we will be ready even if all other things fall around us.

links: starting your own virtual nation
thehub.ca

How to build a virtual country - The Hub

"How do you start a new country?” used to be a straightforward enough question. But Balaji S. Srinivasan explores a new concept suited for our digital age: the network state that's built cloud first, land last.
thehub.ca thehub.ca


This is how I am building my Kingdom for G-d

G-d is over everyone including me.
I am over everyone in my Kingdom/Families.
All of my sons are Kings over their houses, but my oldest is Head after me.
Everything will be owned by The Kingdom and we will use our houses, cars and so forth.
Everything is in a group so we get discounts.
I will be over everything, but my sons will be Kings over their day to day lives.

This is how I am handling my Kingdom and if you pull back more you could see me as a State or Sub-Kingdom in a Group of a Larger Kingdom.
The idea is to protect any of my sons from possible loses and because none of my daughters will inherent anything I don't need to design them in this manner. But if they fall into need my sons will need to help them.

This is how I will be doing it so its just my advice, but this might not be how others believe.

Mark Abraham.
 
MemeFan said:
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 skillSays it ins.



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.
Click to expand...

MemeFan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let me be clear, I'm not sure about democracy. I'm not sure about elitism, neither. But I am certain that what I said about appointing judges is in scriptiure. There is a pretty clear method for doing so prescribed. Let me see if I can provide one instance of it:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/deuteronomy/16-18.html
"You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the LORD your God is giving you."
Deut 16:18-20
Sooooo, not sure where the mind reading of "democracy" came into it, as this is far more serious. Probably the men over their homes and elders in the community appointed judges to stand in the gates and judge matters. Not sure I said anything out of scope from just assuring we follow biblical principles. This is about Biblical Family structure, and elders are part of that. Simple wisdom says to listen to elders.
 
frederick said:
When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, He said, Your kingdom come, Your will be done (Matt. 6:10). The only kingdom any follower of Jesus Christ should be involved in is the one where the King reigns. I want no part in any other kingdom.
Click to expand...

We are all Kings in our own home.
 
AbrahamSolomon said:
We are all Kings in our own home.
Click to expand...
We are all servants of the Most High, entrusted with His property. Serving Him and His Kingdom. The last usurper who tried to elevate his kingdom over God was cast out of the heavens.

Careful, the ground you’re treading is not safe. You are not a king. And what you have does not belong to you.
 
I think the key phrase he said here was "in our own home". I would still disagree with the usage of the term King (but to be fair, "We are all Dukes in our own home" doesn't sound as cool), I think his point stays the same. It may not be his (AbrahamSolomon's) overall kingdom, but he can control a portion of it (specifically his family).

@AbrahamSolomon perhaps it would be better to use the term tribe or clan instead of kingdom and chief or patriarch instead of king.
 
DawoodSaar said:
So Jesus was wrong to say this is how people should handle disputes?

The average person, who has no moral foundation, would end up with a democratic form of morality. The group decides what is best for the group, and they often think incorrectly. So yes, the average congregation that uses this system will eject good people. I guess we'll just have to be ready and waiting for when those good people get spit out of bad churches! We can take them in!

But, as you say, it must be determined what is right and what is wrong. Who decides that if not a judge? According to what standard if not a Law? If we have no basis to claim right and wrong, then how are we any better than those churches who kick people out for disagreeing with the majority?
Click to expand...
The problem with churches using Matthew 18 today isn't the process, it is from Christ and sound, but that contra Deut 16:18-20 the elders in most churches don't do justice. They are blind leading the blind astray.

This is what happens when you throw out the Gospel and worship women instead.

But again, if this is the case, why are you in such a church to begin with?
 
rockfox said:
The problem with churches using Matthew 18 today isn't the process, it is from Christ and sound, but that contra Deut 16:18-20 the elders in most churches don't do justice. They are blind leading the blind astray.
Click to expand...
I'm still an active member of a Pentecostal denomination and the associate minister at one of their churches. One of the greatest issues I see is just ignorance in the leadership. We have so many ministers who were put into positions of leadership for nothing more than being marginally charismatic (in personality). The small "party" of ministers looking for change in the district meet and talk about ideas each year before the district convocation (where all the ministers gather to vote for district leaders, financial decisions, etc.).

For the past three years every meeting has basically ended with everyone agreeing there can really be no change until one of us enters district leadership. The big problem is that the group is a strange form of democracy. Every minister gets a vote at convention, but for the most part the ministers vote with whoever is in leadership. I call them sheep in shepherd's clothing.
 
Just want to point out....the prince of Sheckem was just the son of the patriarch, and the 5 kings in Joshua's last campaign....were probably just senior patriarchs too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top