It is best known
from the period covered by the Bible book of Judges but not limited to
then. Moses was a judge leader and in
Exodus 18, we learn that (as is often the case today) his court was swamped
with cases; delays and exhaustion were the result. Many more judges were appointed to help out
the chief judge and each had to adhere to certain standards of integrity and
impartiality. Even when the judge was
replaced by the king as the figurehead of the nation and the chief dispenser of
civil justice (see David in 2 Samuel 15:2), judges remained a vital part of
Israelite life (see Ezra 7:25, 2 Chronicles 19:5).
Perhaps the
first thing you might think of in relation to a judge is dealing with
criminals. You’ll recall the famous case
of Solomon, the baby and the sword? It typifies the kind of civil law justice
that would have been their main focus – the resolving of disputes. There were certain important administrative
functions to be performed which also oiled the wheels of social life; an
example of which is the recognition of the lifelong binding of a slave to his
master (Exodus 21:5-6). At times, the worked
in tandem with the priests (see Deuteronomy 17:8-10) and logically the latter
would have been the primary experts on ceremonial law. But it would also seem that guilt in the
context of criminal law was established not by the judges but by witness
testimony of the community (see Deuteronomy 17:6 for example).
In Judges, the
judges were pressed into emergency service - rescuing the people from raiding
marauders (Judges 2:16). The name of
one of the famous judges, Joshua, means Saviour – relevant of course to his
role and also a pointer to the future Saviour of the same name.
Did this model work? The judges themselves were of varying calibers and there was a general
dearth of strong leadership role models across the nation which meant that the
moral and spiritual environment was poor.
As a result the period was very volatile and instability was never far
away.
How long God
would have persisted with the model is a matter of speculation, but it was the
people themselves that called for a change.
Their motives were largely selfish but they were given an excuse by the
unethical behavior of Samuel’s sons (see 1 Samuel 8). Behind that, the people wanted a more visual
and dynamic leader which would make them like everyone else.
God took this
very personally – he somewhat surprisingly told Samuel that the people were actually
rejecting him. God knew full well what
they were letting themselves in for but his warnings fell on deaf ears. Key differences in the monarchical model
would cause issues over time. The main
difference was that kingship was hereditary (and not raised up directly by God
like the judges) and this was to cause trouble:
·
many sons proved to be unsuitable
candidates
·
often undue influence of family
members or family battles for succession
·
potential for inexperienced
kings and unstable government
·
focus on self-aggrandizement and
passing on of wealth
·
increase in political and
military maneuvering for own gain
Ironically,
these issues often resulted in less justice for the people. Despite these
drawbacks, at least the highlights of the reign of David are a foreshadowing of
the great King that was, and is, to come.
Today, we often rightly complain about the apparent unfairness of life, the
social inequalities that exist and a sense that justice is not being done. We can look forward to a future day, in the
Millennium, where the Lord will reign on earth as King/Judge and we will really
see what good civil government looks like:
“In love a throne will be established; in faithfulness a man will
sit on it— one from the house of David— one who in judging seeks
justice and speeds the cause of righteousness." (Isaiah 16:5).
No comments:
Post a Comment