The Nature of the Lowest Courts, Part 1
by Dr. Patti Amsden
by Dr. Patti Amsden
One marked difference between the court system established under Moses and the courts established under Jesus can be found when considering the first level court in each system. Israel had been set free from the captivity of the Egyptians and been led out into the wilderness under the hand of Moses. As the budding nation was discovering new social and civil norms, they were being forced to displace the mindset of slaves who had very few liberties. One could say that their worldview was not that of an emancipated, self-governing people. The shift from other-controlled to self-controlled was huge. Pharaoh and the Egyptian system held the position of a dictatorial benefactor, meaning that food and shelter had been provided but only through the severity of a despotic and tyrannical imperial king.
Free will was seldom an option for Abraham’s lineage during their captivity years in Egypt. Earned reward was confiscated. Personal compensation for a job well done was commandeered. Promotions with a bonus structure and a retirement plan were removed from the negotiation table. Egypt was the sole beneficiary of the hard work. Pharaoh’s assets grew from the arduous labors of the Israel slaves. And for their efforts, Israel was allowed to eat, drink, and live.
Because of the hardships the Israelites endured, they cried out to God for deliverance. God responded and raised up Moses to negotiate with Pharaoh the terms of release. After each consecutive miracle, Moses’ position in the negotiations became stronger. Upon the tenth miracle and the death of the firstborn, Pharaoh agreed to the emancipation. The nation went forth as a freed people. The community departed under a new sovereign. They would work for God, and both their reward and their responsibility would be altered.
Israel would have undoubtedly been ready for a new reward. However, personal reward is intrinsically tied to responsibility. A look at the nation’s responses during their wilderness wanderings gives the reader some insight as to the mindset or paradigm of the people who had endured generations under a dictatorial benefactor. Scripture records one period of time when the people were unhappy with their food. “And the mixed multitude that was among them began lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic. But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes” (Num. 11:4-6).
The people had been given heaven’s bread. Manna fell every day. God had taken the role of the benevolent sovereign, and He had granted food and drink. The provision, nonetheless, did not satisfy; and the people complained. Their criticism was framed from their Egyptian paradigm. They were used to the food and drink provided by their former benefactor. They wanted the provision Pharaoh had supplied. They seemed to have forgotten the Egyptian narrative of slavery, bondage, and serfdom. Historical revisionism was at work, and they would have willingly placed themselves back under the dictator just to have a temporary reward and carnal satisfaction.
God was shifting Israel’s mindset away from servitude and into responsible stewardship. The shift was difficult. God intended to place the people in the land of Canaan and empower them for earthly dominion. They would make decisions and prosper or suffer lack as a result of their choices. They would need to think long-term occupation rather than short-term gratification. They would no longer work for an earthly king to enlarge his fortune but they would each have a kingly aspect of their individual lives and would be allowed to enlarge their private and family fortunes. Shift! Big Shift – from a paradigm of slaves to earthly rulers!
Before a man or woman can successfully rule their world, they must develop the ability to rule themselves. Self-governing is a skill that grows as rules are internalized and core transcendent values are personally owned. Under Pharaoh, the people of God had to submit to the harsh rules of Egyptian tyranny or suffer the consequences. The laws were externally mandated and externally enforced. No slave loves the laws that hold him in bondage. With their deliverance and under the administration of their New Sovereign, the personal and national laws promised individual liberty and societal justice. These were laws that a free man could love. These were laws that could be appreciated and, thus, internalized. God gave Moses a law and Moses gave the people a law that could be embraced with all their heart, their mind, and their soul. The laws scripted on the rocks were meant to be scripted upon the hearts of all the Israelites.
Again, the paradigm of the Israelites became an issue. Not only did they want provision without responsibility, they expected a law to be administrated externally. Therefore, when disputes arose, they sought out an external judge. They needed someone to tell then what to do. They needed someone to interpret justice. They would require time to learn the law, understand the law, internalize the law, and become self-governed by the law. Before they could act as their own judge, they would need to learn to act as their own appraiser. Therefore, Moses’ first level in his court system was one judge for every ten citizens. Apparently, Moses did not expect that settling disputes could be effectively accomplished brother to brother in the cultural paradigm of slaves. Internalization of God’s laws would produce self-governing people who would be capable of earthly dominion. Until that goal could be realized, Moses set the requirement for a hearing very low for the court system in Israel. Learn more about internalizing transcendent values in next week’s article.
Free will was seldom an option for Abraham’s lineage during their captivity years in Egypt. Earned reward was confiscated. Personal compensation for a job well done was commandeered. Promotions with a bonus structure and a retirement plan were removed from the negotiation table. Egypt was the sole beneficiary of the hard work. Pharaoh’s assets grew from the arduous labors of the Israel slaves. And for their efforts, Israel was allowed to eat, drink, and live.
Because of the hardships the Israelites endured, they cried out to God for deliverance. God responded and raised up Moses to negotiate with Pharaoh the terms of release. After each consecutive miracle, Moses’ position in the negotiations became stronger. Upon the tenth miracle and the death of the firstborn, Pharaoh agreed to the emancipation. The nation went forth as a freed people. The community departed under a new sovereign. They would work for God, and both their reward and their responsibility would be altered.
Israel would have undoubtedly been ready for a new reward. However, personal reward is intrinsically tied to responsibility. A look at the nation’s responses during their wilderness wanderings gives the reader some insight as to the mindset or paradigm of the people who had endured generations under a dictatorial benefactor. Scripture records one period of time when the people were unhappy with their food. “And the mixed multitude that was among them began lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic. But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes” (Num. 11:4-6).
The people had been given heaven’s bread. Manna fell every day. God had taken the role of the benevolent sovereign, and He had granted food and drink. The provision, nonetheless, did not satisfy; and the people complained. Their criticism was framed from their Egyptian paradigm. They were used to the food and drink provided by their former benefactor. They wanted the provision Pharaoh had supplied. They seemed to have forgotten the Egyptian narrative of slavery, bondage, and serfdom. Historical revisionism was at work, and they would have willingly placed themselves back under the dictator just to have a temporary reward and carnal satisfaction.
God was shifting Israel’s mindset away from servitude and into responsible stewardship. The shift was difficult. God intended to place the people in the land of Canaan and empower them for earthly dominion. They would make decisions and prosper or suffer lack as a result of their choices. They would need to think long-term occupation rather than short-term gratification. They would no longer work for an earthly king to enlarge his fortune but they would each have a kingly aspect of their individual lives and would be allowed to enlarge their private and family fortunes. Shift! Big Shift – from a paradigm of slaves to earthly rulers!
Before a man or woman can successfully rule their world, they must develop the ability to rule themselves. Self-governing is a skill that grows as rules are internalized and core transcendent values are personally owned. Under Pharaoh, the people of God had to submit to the harsh rules of Egyptian tyranny or suffer the consequences. The laws were externally mandated and externally enforced. No slave loves the laws that hold him in bondage. With their deliverance and under the administration of their New Sovereign, the personal and national laws promised individual liberty and societal justice. These were laws that a free man could love. These were laws that could be appreciated and, thus, internalized. God gave Moses a law and Moses gave the people a law that could be embraced with all their heart, their mind, and their soul. The laws scripted on the rocks were meant to be scripted upon the hearts of all the Israelites.
Again, the paradigm of the Israelites became an issue. Not only did they want provision without responsibility, they expected a law to be administrated externally. Therefore, when disputes arose, they sought out an external judge. They needed someone to tell then what to do. They needed someone to interpret justice. They would require time to learn the law, understand the law, internalize the law, and become self-governed by the law. Before they could act as their own judge, they would need to learn to act as their own appraiser. Therefore, Moses’ first level in his court system was one judge for every ten citizens. Apparently, Moses did not expect that settling disputes could be effectively accomplished brother to brother in the cultural paradigm of slaves. Internalization of God’s laws would produce self-governing people who would be capable of earthly dominion. Until that goal could be realized, Moses set the requirement for a hearing very low for the court system in Israel. Learn more about internalizing transcendent values in next week’s article.
