BEIT DIN - House of judgment
A Beit Din is a group of elders gathered together in order to render a ruling or judgment on a matter. A Beit Din should be composed of at least three adult believers, at least one of whom needs to be widely knowledgeable in Halakha, and must be sufficiently knowledgeable to instruct the other two members in any matters of Halakha relevant to the case being heard. A Beit Din may be called to rule on such religious matters as the granting of a gett or to determine a persons’ fitness to lead in ministry.
The first known Messianic Beit Din was led by James in city of Jerusalem. Its purpose was to resolve the issue of relations between Jewish Talmidim and Goyish Talmidim especially viz a vis the requirement of circumcision for salvation.
We believe it was regarding this system that Paul said,
The first known Messianic Beit Din was led by James in city of Jerusalem. Its purpose was to resolve the issue of relations between Jewish Talmidim and Goyish Talmidim especially viz a vis the requirement of circumcision for salvation.
We believe it was regarding this system that Paul said,
- 1 Corinthians 6:1-6 HCSB Does any of you who has a complaint against someone dare go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? (2) Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest cases? (3) Do you not know that we will judge angels--not to speak of things pertaining to this life? (4) So if you have cases pertaining to this life, do you select those who have no standing in the church to judge? (5) I say this to your shame! Can it be that there is not one wise person among you who will be able to arbitrate between his brothers? (6) Instead, brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
General Principles the Beit Din Follows
Great seriousness. To understand the importance of integrity within the Halakhic system one must remember that in the Tanakh the witnesses were to be the first ones to cast the stones. They were to be intimately involved in putting the person to death (Deuteronomy 13:6-9; 17:7). Perjury was a crime that was also paid for with one’s life (Deuteronomy 19:16-19; Zechariah 5:3-4). Between the requirement that witnesses were to take an active part in the death of the person and the risk that a person would fall victim to the potential consequence that would have befallen the accused should one’s testimony be found perjured, it is likely that witnessing was taken VERY seriously!
Careful investigation. Careful investigation by a recognized court of law is required. (Numbers 35:12; Joshua 20:4-6) The Beit Din must actually be known for very careful investigation. (Deuteronomy 13:14; 17:4; 19:18; Proverbs 25:2; John 7:51)
Transparency. The case may not only to be brought before a court of dayanim, but it may possibly be open to observation by the assembly (Numbers 35:12; Acts 16:37); no closed, secret, kangaroo courts allowed.
Justice. Each case is to be decided according to law rather than feelings or personal prejudices (Numbers 35:24; Ezekiel 11:12; 44:24). There can be no favoritism (James 2:9). The law was to be applied even handedly without regard for race or nationality (Numbers 9:14; 35:15). There can be no favoritism in regards to economic or social status. (Exodus 23:3, 6; Leviticus 19:15; Isaiah 10:1-2; Job 34:19; James 2:1-4) As King Jehoshaphat commanded the judges,
Capital crimes. Intentional murder should end in capital punishment (Genesis 9:5-6; Exodus 21:14). Once it is determined that a capital crime has been committed, no ransom can be paid to remit the consequences. Again, it should not matter whether you are rich or poor (Numbers 35:31). Though the Sanhedrin that brought the Mashiach’ to the cross erred in its method of establishing the crime, and erred in their choice of a victim, the principle they used of turning the prosecution of capital crimes over to the host government (Matthew 27:2; John 18:31) clearly falls within the principle of dinah d’malchuta dinah.
Careful investigation. Careful investigation by a recognized court of law is required. (Numbers 35:12; Joshua 20:4-6) The Beit Din must actually be known for very careful investigation. (Deuteronomy 13:14; 17:4; 19:18; Proverbs 25:2; John 7:51)
Transparency. The case may not only to be brought before a court of dayanim, but it may possibly be open to observation by the assembly (Numbers 35:12; Acts 16:37); no closed, secret, kangaroo courts allowed.
Justice. Each case is to be decided according to law rather than feelings or personal prejudices (Numbers 35:24; Ezekiel 11:12; 44:24). There can be no favoritism (James 2:9). The law was to be applied even handedly without regard for race or nationality (Numbers 9:14; 35:15). There can be no favoritism in regards to economic or social status. (Exodus 23:3, 6; Leviticus 19:15; Isaiah 10:1-2; Job 34:19; James 2:1-4) As King Jehoshaphat commanded the judges,
- 2 Chronicles 19:6-7 HCSB Then he said to the judges, "Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the matter of judgment. (7) And now, may the terror of the LORD be on you. Watch what you do, for there is no injustice or partiality or taking bribes with the LORD our God."
Capital crimes. Intentional murder should end in capital punishment (Genesis 9:5-6; Exodus 21:14). Once it is determined that a capital crime has been committed, no ransom can be paid to remit the consequences. Again, it should not matter whether you are rich or poor (Numbers 35:31). Though the Sanhedrin that brought the Mashiach’ to the cross erred in its method of establishing the crime, and erred in their choice of a victim, the principle they used of turning the prosecution of capital crimes over to the host government (Matthew 27:2; John 18:31) clearly falls within the principle of dinah d’malchuta dinah.
Three Witness Rule
Three Witness Figures by Beckie Kravetz
Sins or crimes are judged according to biblical law. We use God’s standards to determine what is serious and what is not. If halakha dictates that a crime is capital, although we cannot enforce that punishment due to dina d’malchuta dina, then those crimes would at the least require expulsion from the church and at most turning the person over to the authorities. If the Scriptures require a fine, or increased labor, restitution or loss of ministry, then that is what we apply.
No crimes or sins that carry serious consequences and certainly no capital crimes should ever be considered without the benefit of two or three witnesses. There has to be at least two to three witnesses, or two to three pieces of corroborating evidence (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; Hebrews 10:28).
Paul, who was a trained rabbi, and who had been a member in high standing of the Sanhedrin at one point, applied the “three witnesses” principle to three different instances or occasions, rather than three people. He said, “We’ve been here twice. If it comes up a third time ‘on the basis of two or three witnesses’ I will not be lenient.” (2 Corinthians 13:1-2)
Thus the “witnesses” may not necessarily be three different people. Perhaps a combination of human testimony and hard evidence or (as here) multiple occasions of the same judgment being made. This only makes sense since human testimony is notoriously erratic and prone to error.
Paul’s application of the Three Witness Rule in the case of the Corinthians also leads us to understand that it should be applied not only to capital cases but to any case that rises to a certain degree of seriousness. So for instance, the Three Witness Rule is applied to different ways in the case of the granting of a gett. First, there must be three witnesses to the spouse’s sin and there must be at least three elders who agree on the ruling.
Say a man is in leadership and someone accuses him of inappropriate behavior with a young female. If there is insufficient evidence against him, it may not be possible to remove him from his position at the time (1 Timothy 5:19-21). However, if the matter comes up again, there would be enough to say that he has crossed the line of “good reputation with those on the outside” to depose him. There would be the two instances of the same issue along with the two young women to argue against him.
No crimes or sins that carry serious consequences and certainly no capital crimes should ever be considered without the benefit of two or three witnesses. There has to be at least two to three witnesses, or two to three pieces of corroborating evidence (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; Hebrews 10:28).
Paul, who was a trained rabbi, and who had been a member in high standing of the Sanhedrin at one point, applied the “three witnesses” principle to three different instances or occasions, rather than three people. He said, “We’ve been here twice. If it comes up a third time ‘on the basis of two or three witnesses’ I will not be lenient.” (2 Corinthians 13:1-2)
Thus the “witnesses” may not necessarily be three different people. Perhaps a combination of human testimony and hard evidence or (as here) multiple occasions of the same judgment being made. This only makes sense since human testimony is notoriously erratic and prone to error.
Paul’s application of the Three Witness Rule in the case of the Corinthians also leads us to understand that it should be applied not only to capital cases but to any case that rises to a certain degree of seriousness. So for instance, the Three Witness Rule is applied to different ways in the case of the granting of a gett. First, there must be three witnesses to the spouse’s sin and there must be at least three elders who agree on the ruling.
Say a man is in leadership and someone accuses him of inappropriate behavior with a young female. If there is insufficient evidence against him, it may not be possible to remove him from his position at the time (1 Timothy 5:19-21). However, if the matter comes up again, there would be enough to say that he has crossed the line of “good reputation with those on the outside” to depose him. There would be the two instances of the same issue along with the two young women to argue against him.
Three witness rule in regards to elders
If someone is offended by something an elder has done or said, and simply wants to talk about it in an informal manner with the elder or with the pastor that is one thing. However, if they want to bring a formal accusation against an elder; if they want some type or censure to happen, then formal steps must be followed in order to ensure the safety and health of the congregation. We are not to regard an accusation against an elder as proved, if there is but one witness in the case, however positive he might be in his testimony. The reasons for this direction are:
(1) This is Devar Mishnah, clear, black-letter halakhic law in all cases[1], which apparently the Apostle felt still applied under the “age of grace.”
(2) It’s far more likely that one person might be deceived in the matter on which he bore witness, or that he might be doing it from malignant motives, or might have been bribed (not necessarily by money) to give false testimony, than that two or three would give such testimony. Halakha’s arrangement, therefore, furnishes important security for the innocent.
(3) Those whose business it is to correct others will usually have many enemies. Great caution, therefore, should be used in admitting accusations against such persons. We must understand that some evil-minded persons might be disposed to bring charges against the ministers of the gospel or other officers of the church, and that it is important, therefore, that their rights be guarded with anxious care. Good elders often give offense to wicked people by their rebukes of sin.[2] Wicked people would love to see an accusation against such dayanim sustained. The cause of the faith would likely suffer much if its ministers were condemned as guilty of either gross offences or many slight offenses, and it is right, therefore, that the evidence in the case should be as free as possible from all suspicion that it is caused by malignity, by hatred of righteous living, or by conspiracy, or by a desire to see the Way disgraced.
(4) The character of a minister of the gospel is of value, not only to himself and his or her family, as is the case with that of other people, but is of special value to the church, and to the cause of the Gospel. His character is, in that sense, the property of the church. The interests of Christ’s kingdom depend much on it, and it should not be wantonly attacked. Every precaution should be adopted that Christianity should not be deprived of the advantage which may be derived in its favor from the piety, experience, and talents of its most public defenders. Therefore a charge against a pastor of a church must not be easily received; nor should it be listened to privately, unless it clearly appears by such a number of witnesses; nor should it be brought publicly before the church, until it is privately and previously proved, by a sufficient number of credible witnesses, that it is really fact.
We need to keep in mind that such accusation carries some degree of scandal for such a person to even be charged, even though he may later be cleared. We should also consider these precautions because of his many enemies, who through envy, malice, and the instigation of Satan, would be continually pestering the church with charges, could they be easily admitted.
Let me say that I really appreciate Paul’s teaching on this matter.
It’s not so much that I appreciate the safety net it affords for someone who counsels people in very volatile situations constantly. No I appreciate it because it allows a righteous elder to identify not only the principle actor, but any supporting people as well. It’s always interesting to see who supports the wicked.
No benefit of clergy. At the same time, however, the wicked, even if they have somehow contrived to be in the ministry, should not be screened from the punishment which they deserve. The apostle gave no injunction to attempt to cover up their faults, or to save them from a fair trial. He only demanded such security as the nature of the case required, that the trial should be fair.
If a minister of the gospel has been proved to be guilty of crime, the honor of Christ, as well as simple justice, requires that he shall be punished as he deserves. He sins against great light; he prostitutes a holy office, and makes use of the very reputation which his office gives him, that he may betray the confidence of others; and such a man should not escape. There should be no “benefit of clergy,” and neither a black coat, nor backwards collars, nor an adoring congregation should save a villain.
Potential consequence for witnesses. The witnesses must be willing to stake their reputation on this matter.[4] It has been a long-standing practice of our elders to look at a verse not only at its face value but to also try to learn from it by its reverse application. In other words, if two or three witnesses bring a valid testimony against an elder, that elder is to be rebuked publicly so that other elders will fear and will not commit the same sin. On the flip side, if those two or three witnesses are determined to be false, they are to be subject to the same consequence.
That interpretation is supported by:
So for instance, if the consequence of an accused elders being found in the wrong would be a public rebuke, the witnesses, if found to be in the wrong, would be subject to the same penalty.
Notice the similarity in the language between 1 Timothy 5:20 and Deuteronomy 19:19-20. Those who are wrong must be dealt with publicly so that others will fear making the same mistake and will not bring frivolous accusations.
[1] Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15 cp John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1
[2] Mark 6:17-20
[3] Cp Deuteronomy 13:11
[4] Also consider Proverbs 19:5, 9 and Daniel 6:24
(1) This is Devar Mishnah, clear, black-letter halakhic law in all cases[1], which apparently the Apostle felt still applied under the “age of grace.”
(2) It’s far more likely that one person might be deceived in the matter on which he bore witness, or that he might be doing it from malignant motives, or might have been bribed (not necessarily by money) to give false testimony, than that two or three would give such testimony. Halakha’s arrangement, therefore, furnishes important security for the innocent.
(3) Those whose business it is to correct others will usually have many enemies. Great caution, therefore, should be used in admitting accusations against such persons. We must understand that some evil-minded persons might be disposed to bring charges against the ministers of the gospel or other officers of the church, and that it is important, therefore, that their rights be guarded with anxious care. Good elders often give offense to wicked people by their rebukes of sin.[2] Wicked people would love to see an accusation against such dayanim sustained. The cause of the faith would likely suffer much if its ministers were condemned as guilty of either gross offences or many slight offenses, and it is right, therefore, that the evidence in the case should be as free as possible from all suspicion that it is caused by malignity, by hatred of righteous living, or by conspiracy, or by a desire to see the Way disgraced.
(4) The character of a minister of the gospel is of value, not only to himself and his or her family, as is the case with that of other people, but is of special value to the church, and to the cause of the Gospel. His character is, in that sense, the property of the church. The interests of Christ’s kingdom depend much on it, and it should not be wantonly attacked. Every precaution should be adopted that Christianity should not be deprived of the advantage which may be derived in its favor from the piety, experience, and talents of its most public defenders. Therefore a charge against a pastor of a church must not be easily received; nor should it be listened to privately, unless it clearly appears by such a number of witnesses; nor should it be brought publicly before the church, until it is privately and previously proved, by a sufficient number of credible witnesses, that it is really fact.
We need to keep in mind that such accusation carries some degree of scandal for such a person to even be charged, even though he may later be cleared. We should also consider these precautions because of his many enemies, who through envy, malice, and the instigation of Satan, would be continually pestering the church with charges, could they be easily admitted.
Let me say that I really appreciate Paul’s teaching on this matter.
- 1 Timothy 5:19-20 HCSB Don't accept an accusation against an elder unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. (20) Publicly rebuke those who sin, so that the rest will also be afraid.[3]
It’s not so much that I appreciate the safety net it affords for someone who counsels people in very volatile situations constantly. No I appreciate it because it allows a righteous elder to identify not only the principle actor, but any supporting people as well. It’s always interesting to see who supports the wicked.
No benefit of clergy. At the same time, however, the wicked, even if they have somehow contrived to be in the ministry, should not be screened from the punishment which they deserve. The apostle gave no injunction to attempt to cover up their faults, or to save them from a fair trial. He only demanded such security as the nature of the case required, that the trial should be fair.
If a minister of the gospel has been proved to be guilty of crime, the honor of Christ, as well as simple justice, requires that he shall be punished as he deserves. He sins against great light; he prostitutes a holy office, and makes use of the very reputation which his office gives him, that he may betray the confidence of others; and such a man should not escape. There should be no “benefit of clergy,” and neither a black coat, nor backwards collars, nor an adoring congregation should save a villain.
Potential consequence for witnesses. The witnesses must be willing to stake their reputation on this matter.[4] It has been a long-standing practice of our elders to look at a verse not only at its face value but to also try to learn from it by its reverse application. In other words, if two or three witnesses bring a valid testimony against an elder, that elder is to be rebuked publicly so that other elders will fear and will not commit the same sin. On the flip side, if those two or three witnesses are determined to be false, they are to be subject to the same consequence.
That interpretation is supported by:
- Deuteronomy 19:18-21 HCSB The judges are to make a careful investigation, and if the witness turns out to be a liar who has falsely accused his brother, (19) you must do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from you. (20) Then everyone else will hear and be afraid, and they will never again do anything evil like this among you. (21) You must not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot.
- Proverbs 26:27 HCSB The one who digs a pit will fall into it, and whoever rolls a stone--it will come back on him.
- Matthew 7:2 HCSB For with the judgment you use, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
So for instance, if the consequence of an accused elders being found in the wrong would be a public rebuke, the witnesses, if found to be in the wrong, would be subject to the same penalty.
Notice the similarity in the language between 1 Timothy 5:20 and Deuteronomy 19:19-20. Those who are wrong must be dealt with publicly so that others will fear making the same mistake and will not bring frivolous accusations.
[1] Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15 cp John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1
[2] Mark 6:17-20
[3] Cp Deuteronomy 13:11
[4] Also consider Proverbs 19:5, 9 and Daniel 6:24
Prison
In Israel during the period covered by the Old Covenant, a man found guilty of manslaughter was to be given safe passage to and from the location of the trial to the city of refuge. His guilt, though unintentional, resulted in confinement in a city of refuge until the death of the current high priest. (Numbers 35:25, 32)
There is not a single positive example of God’s people using prisons in the Tanakh. There are examples of Egyptian, Assyrian prisons. The cases of prisons in Israel were in each case associated with wicked kings. However, Jesus seemed to support the use of prisons (Matthew 5:25; 18:30; 25:36, 39, 43-44; Luke 12:58; cp Hebrews 13:3), perhaps acquiescing to human practice as He did to divorce (Matthew 19:8), polygamy, and slavery, seeking merely to ameliorate the system and bring justice. Therefore, we may consider the principle of dinah d’malchuta dina would allow for lengthy imprisonment for those guilty of manslaughter or other crimes for which the punishment is deemed suitable.
There is not a single positive example of God’s people using prisons in the Tanakh. There are examples of Egyptian, Assyrian prisons. The cases of prisons in Israel were in each case associated with wicked kings. However, Jesus seemed to support the use of prisons (Matthew 5:25; 18:30; 25:36, 39, 43-44; Luke 12:58; cp Hebrews 13:3), perhaps acquiescing to human practice as He did to divorce (Matthew 19:8), polygamy, and slavery, seeking merely to ameliorate the system and bring justice. Therefore, we may consider the principle of dinah d’malchuta dina would allow for lengthy imprisonment for those guilty of manslaughter or other crimes for which the punishment is deemed suitable.
Obedience
Hebrews 13:17 HCSB Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account, so that they can do this with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.
Refusing to abide by the decision of a court was also treated as a capital crime (Deuteronomy 17:9-13). This is because once a nation begins to ignore its own laws (as unfortunately ours is), it is on its way to chaos and destruction.
We must remember that the reason the previous inhabitants of Canaan lost their possession was because of their terrible wickedness. They sinned against the land, defiling it and as a result losing it. Should we do the same thing, the Lord who shows no favoritism is just as likely to do the same thing to us. (Genesis 15:16; Numbers 33:55-56)
Refusing to abide by the Law should thus be considered to be treason, an act of war (Numbers 35:33-34; Deuteronomy 25:15-16). Dinah d’malchuta dinah precludes the modern beit din’s application of capital punishment in this way. Nevertheless, we must keep in mind the seriousness with which Adonai considers this particular crime and act appropriately.
It is the policy of this congregation that the ruling of the Beit Din is considered final in most cases. The only remaining option for a person who has refused the counsel of an elder, the counsel of two elders and the counsel of the Beit Din is to bring the matter to the congregation. At this point the individual is running a tremendous risk. The odds of all these elders being wrong and for the congregation to overturn their decision (resulting in the likely removal of the entire elder council) is minimal at best. Therefore, the failure to comply to the ruling of the Beit Din would in all likelihood bring church discipline.
Articles:
Two Models ofAlternative Dispute Resolution by Zelcer
Refusing to abide by the decision of a court was also treated as a capital crime (Deuteronomy 17:9-13). This is because once a nation begins to ignore its own laws (as unfortunately ours is), it is on its way to chaos and destruction.
We must remember that the reason the previous inhabitants of Canaan lost their possession was because of their terrible wickedness. They sinned against the land, defiling it and as a result losing it. Should we do the same thing, the Lord who shows no favoritism is just as likely to do the same thing to us. (Genesis 15:16; Numbers 33:55-56)
Refusing to abide by the Law should thus be considered to be treason, an act of war (Numbers 35:33-34; Deuteronomy 25:15-16). Dinah d’malchuta dinah precludes the modern beit din’s application of capital punishment in this way. Nevertheless, we must keep in mind the seriousness with which Adonai considers this particular crime and act appropriately.
It is the policy of this congregation that the ruling of the Beit Din is considered final in most cases. The only remaining option for a person who has refused the counsel of an elder, the counsel of two elders and the counsel of the Beit Din is to bring the matter to the congregation. At this point the individual is running a tremendous risk. The odds of all these elders being wrong and for the congregation to overturn their decision (resulting in the likely removal of the entire elder council) is minimal at best. Therefore, the failure to comply to the ruling of the Beit Din would in all likelihood bring church discipline.
Articles:
Two Models ofAlternative Dispute Resolution by Zelcer
