Halakha
Introduction to Halakha
Halakha (plural: halachot; also seen as Halachic or halakhic) is Adonaic law, or regulation. It is the legal ruling on a particular issue; the body of Scriptural law. Halakha is the collective corpus of biblical law that governs the behavior of tzaddikim. It is sometimes referred to as Adonaic law and intends to mean all the scriptural tenets as to behavior and conduct whether directly and explicitly stated or implied by various combinations of biblical principles. Halakha comes from the Hebrew word halach’ which means “to walk” or “to go”. It is therefore probably better understood as “the right way to go.”
Criminal cases are referred to as issurim. Civil cases are referred to as mamonoth. Each impose different regulations, with criminal cases generally having much more stringent limitations. Halakha is not considered a means to achieving redemption but is instead understood to be God’s teaching on responsible behavior. Where Halakha commands “behave justly toward your neighbor,” Mussar discusses what that entails and what personal traits are necessary to obey Yahweh’s command.
Halakha is also used in the sense of a discussion of legal matters. So a Believer may ask his or her rabbi “What is the Halakha in this case?”
Halakha is developed from both explicit biblical instructions and implicit case history. A wise elder will prefer having both explicit instruction and case history illustrating the point in hand before rendering a decision.
Halakha is generally broken down into
Criminal cases are referred to as issurim. Civil cases are referred to as mamonoth. Each impose different regulations, with criminal cases generally having much more stringent limitations. Halakha is not considered a means to achieving redemption but is instead understood to be God’s teaching on responsible behavior. Where Halakha commands “behave justly toward your neighbor,” Mussar discusses what that entails and what personal traits are necessary to obey Yahweh’s command.
Halakha is also used in the sense of a discussion of legal matters. So a Believer may ask his or her rabbi “What is the Halakha in this case?”
Halakha is developed from both explicit biblical instructions and implicit case history. A wise elder will prefer having both explicit instruction and case history illustrating the point in hand before rendering a decision.
Halakha is generally broken down into
- Devar mishnah (clear settled law),
- Shikul ha da’at (matters not settled and left to the understanding of the individual) and
- Minhag (customs or community practices that are not directly commanded by God but that have been found to be useful to tzaddikim)Thousands of years ago Moses’ father-in-law Jethro suggested that Moses delegate some of his authority to lower courts so that the people would be able to get timely justice. This suggestion was adopted and formalized by God’s explicit command to “establish judges and officers in your gates.” (Deuteronomy 16:18)
Should New Covenant Believers Obey Sinaitic Law?
Many well-meaning Christians view Paul’s statement “the entire law is fulfilled in one statement: you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5:14) as a support for the view that we should completely dispense with the entire Sinaitic Law. However, they must ignore the previous verse that urges that we not use our new-found freedom in Christ as “an opportunity for the flesh”. Moreover, it must be noted that the historical context of this passage included Judaizers trying to get the Galatians to circumcise FOR SALVATION, not day to day practical holiness (sanctification).
Adonaists neither observe the Sinaitic Law in order to gain, nor to keep their salvation; for the Apostle clearly instructed:
Obviously, since Christ fulfilled that particular part of the Law, anything in the Sinaitic Law that deals with salvation of the soul is not required. Thus, we no longer are required to sacrifice animals since the Perfect Sacrifice has occurred once for all. (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12, 28; 10:10, 12, 14)
Many people like to quote broad statements like “Love God; love your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:18; Luke 10:27) but do not delve into what that means practically speaking. What does it MEAN to love your neighbor? The Law explains that it means you’re not allowed to sleep with his wife. It also means that if you borrow his tool and it gets broken or stolen while in your care, you are responsible to replace it.
What does it mean to love God? The Law explains it in practical terms and that’s the rub. Many don’t want a practical explanation. They don’t want the Bible to get into specifics because that would mean they have to actually modify their behavior. As long as they stick to the broad generalizations they feel safe.
The Sinaitic Law involved an awful lot more than atonement sacrifices. My difficulty with Cultural Christianity is that many who claim Christ fail to understand His teaching when He said,
Not only did He explicitly teach that the Law was not abolished, but He went on to raise the standard even higher! Before Christ, the illicit sexual act was adultery; now the thought counts. Before rage acted upon was murder; now arrogantly despising someone counts.
It is precisely because the majority of Christians have effectively excised two-thirds of their Bibles under the guise of “grace” that we are in such dire moral straits. We have Christians who claim to pursue the holiness of God, directly contradicting God’s Law (both Old and New) that baldly and unapologetically states homosexuality is a sin! (Leviticus 18:2; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10-11)
The divorce rate among Christians is no different from the unregenerate. The adultery rate is exactly the same. How is the world supposed to believe us when we say that Christ’s Spirit empowers us to overcome sin?
The early church apparently already struggled with this issue for Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) found it necessary to teach: “Everything is permissible but not everything is helpful or builds up. I will not be brought under the control of anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23) “We must not let sin reign. We must not obey its desires. We must be weapons of righteousness. Should we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Absolutely not!” (Romans 6:8-15)
Being no longer saved through the works of the Law but by the gracious death Christ does not give us a free pass to ignore morals, ethics, or the elements of the Sinaitic Law that spell what “Love God; Love your neighbor” looks like in real life.
There are whole sections of the Law that still apply. We still should not murder. We still should not generally lie. We still should be respectful of our parents. To throw out all the Law because it has been summarized for us as love would be like teaching your children etiquette and then having them throw those rules out the window when they leave the home because “now they understand the point!”
Adonaists neither observe the Sinaitic Law in order to gain, nor to keep their salvation; for the Apostle clearly instructed:
- Galatians 3:10-14 HCSB For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law. (11) Now it is clear that no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous will live by faith. (12) But the law is not based on faith; instead, the one who does these things will live by them. (13) Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree. (14) The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
- Galatians 4:4-5 HCSB But when the completion of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, (5) to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Obviously, since Christ fulfilled that particular part of the Law, anything in the Sinaitic Law that deals with salvation of the soul is not required. Thus, we no longer are required to sacrifice animals since the Perfect Sacrifice has occurred once for all. (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12, 28; 10:10, 12, 14)
Many people like to quote broad statements like “Love God; love your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:18; Luke 10:27) but do not delve into what that means practically speaking. What does it MEAN to love your neighbor? The Law explains that it means you’re not allowed to sleep with his wife. It also means that if you borrow his tool and it gets broken or stolen while in your care, you are responsible to replace it.
What does it mean to love God? The Law explains it in practical terms and that’s the rub. Many don’t want a practical explanation. They don’t want the Bible to get into specifics because that would mean they have to actually modify their behavior. As long as they stick to the broad generalizations they feel safe.
The Sinaitic Law involved an awful lot more than atonement sacrifices. My difficulty with Cultural Christianity is that many who claim Christ fail to understand His teaching when He said,
- Matthew 5:17-22 HCSB "Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (18) For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. (19) Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (20) For I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (21) "You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, Do not murder, and whoever murders will be subject to judgment. (22) But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Fool!' will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, 'You moron!' will be subject to hellfire.
Not only did He explicitly teach that the Law was not abolished, but He went on to raise the standard even higher! Before Christ, the illicit sexual act was adultery; now the thought counts. Before rage acted upon was murder; now arrogantly despising someone counts.
It is precisely because the majority of Christians have effectively excised two-thirds of their Bibles under the guise of “grace” that we are in such dire moral straits. We have Christians who claim to pursue the holiness of God, directly contradicting God’s Law (both Old and New) that baldly and unapologetically states homosexuality is a sin! (Leviticus 18:2; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10-11)
The divorce rate among Christians is no different from the unregenerate. The adultery rate is exactly the same. How is the world supposed to believe us when we say that Christ’s Spirit empowers us to overcome sin?
The early church apparently already struggled with this issue for Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) found it necessary to teach: “Everything is permissible but not everything is helpful or builds up. I will not be brought under the control of anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23) “We must not let sin reign. We must not obey its desires. We must be weapons of righteousness. Should we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Absolutely not!” (Romans 6:8-15)
Being no longer saved through the works of the Law but by the gracious death Christ does not give us a free pass to ignore morals, ethics, or the elements of the Sinaitic Law that spell what “Love God; Love your neighbor” looks like in real life.
There are whole sections of the Law that still apply. We still should not murder. We still should not generally lie. We still should be respectful of our parents. To throw out all the Law because it has been summarized for us as love would be like teaching your children etiquette and then having them throw those rules out the window when they leave the home because “now they understand the point!”
Maleh - What's been fulfilled? See the page "Maleh Filters"
The Origin and Nature of Halakha
Yahweh Melek requires that we have a formal manner in which we deal with injustice in our midst. His fine sense of justice demands it.[1]
Thousands of years ago Moses’ father-in-law Jethro suggested that Moses delegate some of his authority to lower courts so that the people would be able to get timely justice.[2] This suggestion was adopted and formalized by God’s explicit command to “establish judges and officers in your gates.”[3]
The concept was ancient even then for it is considered to be implied in the Noahide Laws.[4] One of the seven Noahide laws states that if a man kills another man, then he must be executed by man. But if one must judge a man for a capital crime then there must be a court else it is naught but vigilante justice.
The office and role of these “judges and officers” or, as they were later identified, “elders and deacons,” is categorically established as New Testament church doctrine and practice.[5]
One of the more important roles of an elder is that of dayan or judge. Many times, God’s people (who are unfortunately not yet perfect) are unsure as to the correct behavior in a given circumstance. They often come and ask she’eilot (religious questions) of a posek (an elder assigned to answer such questions).
Elders have been instructed by Yahweh to be diligent in presenting themselves approved to God, workers who do not need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth.[6] Therefore, wise elders meet together and discuss the Scriptures’ application to real-world issues.
Their answers to these she’eilot are given in the form of teshuvot which are a form of halakhic writing and together compose the collection of written decisions and rulings given by the elders of a local church in response to questions addressed to them. The teshuvot usually take one of three forms, depending on the shayla:
1. Midrash – an exegetical study on a specific passage
2. Meforshim – a topical study which hopefully brings a wide range of Scriptures to bear on a given subject
3. Responsa – an ethical ruling
When they have to render a judgment on a matter they gather in what is known as a Beit Din. This is a type of congregational court. Though it is not common to find such structure among Christians, it should be common among Adonaic Christians for we see it clearly in the Scriptures’ teachings.
The Apostle Paul alluded to this church custom when he said,
The elders therefore, acting as dayanim (judges), are responsible for the development of Halakha. Halakha is the collective corpus of biblical law that governs the behavior of the tzaddikim (the Righteous). Halakha comes from the Hebrew word halach’ which means “to walk” or “to go”. It is therefore probably better understood as “the right way to go.” Halakha is thus the sum of the moral, ethical, and behavioral lessons we learn from the Scriptures.
Halakha is developed from both explicit biblical instructions and implicit case history. The Clarity Principle dictates that difficult verses be interpreted in the light of clear verses. Obviously, a wise elder will prefer having both explicit instruction and case history illustrating the point in hand before rendering a decision.
Halakha is generally broken down into
As often as not Halakha follows the principle of lex talionis otherwise referred to as “an eye for an eye”.[7] Some will say that this principle was overturned by the Mashiach’ and will cite Matthew 5:38-44. However, there are a couple of very important issues that must be considered. First, Jesus is not referring to general criminal behavior but to the specific issue of religious persecution. He ends the series of examples and defines the enemies who do these things as “those who persecute you.” To excuse general criminal behavior would invite social chaos and would run contrary to the principle of justice by just means.[8]
[1] Deuteronomy 16:18-20; 19:17; 1 Corinthians 6:1-5
[2] Exodus 18:13-26
[3] Deuteronomy 16:18
[4] Genesis 9:5-6
[5] 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1
[6] 2 Timothy 2:14b-16
[7] Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:17-20; Deuteronomy 19:16-21
[8] Deuteronomy 16:20
Thousands of years ago Moses’ father-in-law Jethro suggested that Moses delegate some of his authority to lower courts so that the people would be able to get timely justice.[2] This suggestion was adopted and formalized by God’s explicit command to “establish judges and officers in your gates.”[3]
The concept was ancient even then for it is considered to be implied in the Noahide Laws.[4] One of the seven Noahide laws states that if a man kills another man, then he must be executed by man. But if one must judge a man for a capital crime then there must be a court else it is naught but vigilante justice.
The office and role of these “judges and officers” or, as they were later identified, “elders and deacons,” is categorically established as New Testament church doctrine and practice.[5]
One of the more important roles of an elder is that of dayan or judge. Many times, God’s people (who are unfortunately not yet perfect) are unsure as to the correct behavior in a given circumstance. They often come and ask she’eilot (religious questions) of a posek (an elder assigned to answer such questions).
Elders have been instructed by Yahweh to be diligent in presenting themselves approved to God, workers who do not need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth.[6] Therefore, wise elders meet together and discuss the Scriptures’ application to real-world issues.
Their answers to these she’eilot are given in the form of teshuvot which are a form of halakhic writing and together compose the collection of written decisions and rulings given by the elders of a local church in response to questions addressed to them. The teshuvot usually take one of three forms, depending on the shayla:
1. Midrash – an exegetical study on a specific passage
2. Meforshim – a topical study which hopefully brings a wide range of Scriptures to bear on a given subject
3. Responsa – an ethical ruling
When they have to render a judgment on a matter they gather in what is known as a Beit Din. This is a type of congregational court. Though it is not common to find such structure among Christians, it should be common among Adonaic Christians for we see it clearly in the Scriptures’ teachings.
The Apostle Paul alluded to this church custom when he 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!
The elders therefore, acting as dayanim (judges), are responsible for the development of Halakha. Halakha is the collective corpus of biblical law that governs the behavior of the tzaddikim (the Righteous). Halakha comes from the Hebrew word halach’ which means “to walk” or “to go”. It is therefore probably better understood as “the right way to go.” Halakha is thus the sum of the moral, ethical, and behavioral lessons we learn from the Scriptures.
Halakha is developed from both explicit biblical instructions and implicit case history. The Clarity Principle dictates that difficult verses be interpreted in the light of clear verses. Obviously, a wise elder will prefer having both explicit instruction and case history illustrating the point in hand before rendering a decision.
Halakha is generally broken down into
- Devar Mishnah (clear settled law)
- Shikul HaDaat (matters not settled and left to the understanding of the individual) and
- Minhag (customs or community practices that are not directly commanded by God but that have been found to be useful to tzaddikim)
As often as not Halakha follows the principle of lex talionis otherwise referred to as “an eye for an eye”.[7] Some will say that this principle was overturned by the Mashiach’ and will cite Matthew 5:38-44. However, there are a couple of very important issues that must be considered. First, Jesus is not referring to general criminal behavior but to the specific issue of religious persecution. He ends the series of examples and defines the enemies who do these things as “those who persecute you.” To excuse general criminal behavior would invite social chaos and would run contrary to the principle of justice by just means.[8]
[1] Deuteronomy 16:18-20; 19:17; 1 Corinthians 6:1-5
[2] Exodus 18:13-26
[3] Deuteronomy 16:18
[4] Genesis 9:5-6
[5] 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1
[6] 2 Timothy 2:14b-16
[7] Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:17-20; Deuteronomy 19:16-21
[8] Deuteronomy 16:20
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.[1] Perjury was a crime that was also paid for with one’s life.[2] 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.[3] The Beit Din must actually be known for very careful investigation.[4]
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;[5] no closed, secret, kangaroo courts allowed.
Justice. Each case is to be decided according to law rather than feelings or personal prejudices.[6] There can be no favoritism.[7] The law was to be applied even handedly without regard for race or nationality.[8] There can be no favoritism in regards to economic or social status.[9] As King Jehoshaphat commanded the judges,
Three witness rule. 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.[13]
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.”[14]
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 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.[15] 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 regarding accusations against an elder. 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[16], 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.[17] 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.[18]
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.[19] 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.
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.[20]
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 referred to use of prisons,[21] perhaps acknowledging the human practice as He did divorce,[22] 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. Refusing to abide by the decision of a court was also treated as a capital crime.[23] 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.[24]
Refusing to abide by the Law should thus be considered to be treason, an act of war.[25] 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.
[1] Deuteronomy 13:6-9; 17:7
[2] Deuteronomy 19:16-19; Zechariah 5:3-4
[3] Numbers 35:12; Joshua 20:4-6
[4] Deuteronomy 13:14; 17:4; 19:18; Proverbs 25:2; John 7:51
[5] Numbers 35:12; Acts 16:37
[6] Numbers 35:24; Ezekiel 11:12; 44:24
[7] James 2:9
[8] Numbers 9:14; 35:15
[9] Exodus 23:3, 6; Leviticus 19:15; Isaiah 10:1-2; Job 34:19; James 2:1-4
[10] Genesis 9:5-6; Exodus 21:14
[11] Numbers 35:31
[12] Matthew 27:2; John 18:31
[13] Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; Hebrews 10:28
[14] 2 Corinthians 13:1-2
[15] 1 Timothy 5:19-21
[16] Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15 cp John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1
[17] Mark 6:17-20
[18] Cp Deuteronomy 13:11
[19] Also consider Proverbs 19:5, 9 and Daniel 6:24
[20] Numbers 35:25, 32
[21] Matthew 5:25; 18:30; 25:36, 39, 43-44; Luke 12:58; cp Hebrews 13:3
[22] Matthew 19:8
[23] Deuteronomy 17:9-13
[24] Genesis 15:16; Numbers 33:55-56
[25] Numbers 35:33-34; Deuteronomy 25:15-16
Careful investigation. Careful investigation by a recognized court of law is required.[3] The Beit Din must actually be known for very careful investigation.[4]
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;[5] no closed, secret, kangaroo courts allowed.
Justice. Each case is to be decided according to law rather than feelings or personal prejudices.[6] There can be no favoritism.[7] The law was to be applied even handedly without regard for race or nationality.[8] There can be no favoritism in regards to economic or social status.[9] 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."
Three witness rule. 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.[13]
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.”[14]
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 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.[15] 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 regarding accusations against an elder. 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[16], 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.[17] 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.[18]
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.[19] 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.
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.[20]
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 referred to use of prisons,[21] perhaps acknowledging the human practice as He did divorce,[22] 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. Refusing to abide by the decision of a court was also treated as a capital crime.[23] 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.[24]
Refusing to abide by the Law should thus be considered to be treason, an act of war.[25] 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.
[1] Deuteronomy 13:6-9; 17:7
[2] Deuteronomy 19:16-19; Zechariah 5:3-4
[3] Numbers 35:12; Joshua 20:4-6
[4] Deuteronomy 13:14; 17:4; 19:18; Proverbs 25:2; John 7:51
[5] Numbers 35:12; Acts 16:37
[6] Numbers 35:24; Ezekiel 11:12; 44:24
[7] James 2:9
[8] Numbers 9:14; 35:15
[9] Exodus 23:3, 6; Leviticus 19:15; Isaiah 10:1-2; Job 34:19; James 2:1-4
[10] Genesis 9:5-6; Exodus 21:14
[11] Numbers 35:31
[12] Matthew 27:2; John 18:31
[13] Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; Hebrews 10:28
[14] 2 Corinthians 13:1-2
[15] 1 Timothy 5:19-21
[16] Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15 cp John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1
[17] Mark 6:17-20
[18] Cp Deuteronomy 13:11
[19] Also consider Proverbs 19:5, 9 and Daniel 6:24
[20] Numbers 35:25, 32
[21] Matthew 5:25; 18:30; 25:36, 39, 43-44; Luke 12:58; cp Hebrews 13:3
[22] Matthew 19:8
[23] Deuteronomy 17:9-13
[24] Genesis 15:16; Numbers 33:55-56
[25] Numbers 35:33-34; Deuteronomy 25:15-16
