Jump to content

Outta Here

"As God is my witness" - (compare De.22::25-27)

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Outta Here -
Srecko Sostar -
4
375

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

De.19:15 is pretty explicit:

“No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established."

However, increasingly, De.22:25-27 is set against this requirement as a justification for relaxing the 2 witness requirement in modern cases of abuse.

"“If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her."

The witness absence factor is compared to a case of murder. We know there were provisions in Israel for this in the form of the cities of refuge procedures (Nu.35:10-32, where the single witness prohibition is stated at v30), and the bloodguilt removal procedure in the complete absence of a perpetrator as outlined at De.21:9.

With regard to the sexual crime, further procedures were in place in which Jehovah's participation as a witness was invited. These are outlined at Nu.5:11-31. Obviously, Jehovah can serve as a witness in the case of secret sin of this nature (2Sam.11:27) without invoking a ritual,  because he is aware of these things. 

Does anyone know of instances in Jewish history or commentaries where the matter outlined in De.22:25 was handled appropriately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the events of rape in scripture, such as Dinah, it doesn’t say how Jacob her father, found out about it, or whether God revealed it to him as a “witness”.  All the accounts of rape in the Bible are surrounded with subsequent acts of gruesome violence.   How interesting today, that child abuse and rape among God’s people has brought its own brand of ‘violence’ along with it; and the GB, with its elder body, is oblivious to its effect.  They march on, stuck in their determination not to look at the deeper, bigger picture of their own actions; or that God sees everything.   1 Cor 10:11,12; Joel 2:6-9; Ps 119:126

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similarity in wording (witness) we have im Matt 18:15-17

Words says that some "brother commits a sin". Who know that he sinned? Obviously "you" (he is "YOUR brother"). You are witness or you heard from someone else. But for me logic and justifiability for your action is that you personally are witnessed to something that make you worried and how brother's action (in words or deeds), you by your reason and understanding consider as sin. 
Because of that you go in person (eye to eye) to tell him your feelings and view and ask him to explain his side of story. If you had not make issue clear in this initial conversation or perhaps in few more conversations ( WHY to stop on one conversation?? as they said here "night is wiser", that means you have to sleep over at least one night to continue on decision :)))))), and his answer and explanation not satisfied you, by Matthews words, you can if you want, to call, to involve some other persons (be careful whom you choose!) and then in one or few more conversations, arguing, reasoning try to establish more facts about what you see and how you see - and what he done or not done - and how it is possible to explain in wider context what happened or does exist some other explanation on issue. If all involved parties are honest and with open mind and not want to be self-righteous, perhaps this second step or steps can be seen as some sort of "investigation", but as in third step (before elders) persons that are involved in all this "suffer and misery" must be impartial and not want to highlight to achieve just or only LAW and RULES but JUSTICE. Justice is above every Law. Because Love is above all and Love loving Justice and Mercy and Compassion - not Law. :)

Fisher, Your observation was on rape and murder. This in Matthew seems something benign in comparison to OT example. Ancient people was also faced with problem of how to established, how to find the truth about what was really happened in situation when no one saw the event.  Perhaps "witness" is not just and only someone who saw or hear act and words. But "witness" can or should be also persons who participate in whole process about somebody and something. Just thought :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22:28,19    "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Here we have strange situation. Rapist are obligated to marry her. And she is obligated to "respect rapist" as husband. 

Very inspired verses. Imagine how can look like family life after such events.

In this matters no one ask for "witness". Just said, "if they are discovered".  Why?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      WHY would Jehovah's Witnesses reject Government  calls for Independent Inquiry into sexual abuse?


    • By TrueTomHarley
      Maybe we finally have this City of Refuge thing down pat after yesterday's study article. The way the Law had it, the accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, where his case would be heard. If the 'avenger of blood' (closest relative of the deceased) killed him before he got there, he was guiltless. He might simply have lost it. Or he might figure there wouldn't have been an accident if the fellow had been more careful or not neglected safety. (aspects of safety on the job were also considered, as in 'What can we learn from this?')   BUT some have said that he could not do otherwise. He MUST put the killer to death. It is not his prerogative to overlook or forgive, because principles greater than just a matter between two humans come into play. Still, it is hard to believe that a man, bereaved himself, would HAVE TO put to death someone, maybe a close friend or even a relative, who had accidentally taken a life.   How does the following work as a compromise? The killer MUST flee to one of the cities of refuge - that much is clear. Why couldn't the avenger of blood take his sweet time in his 'pursuit' - or even walk there with him, if he was really a close chum? Our minds are skewed by the picture in the Watchtower decades ago of the manslayer running for all he is worth with the avenger hot on his heals. Who is to say it was always (or even usually) like that?   The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?   THEN he would be put to death, not just for the accidental killing itself, or even primarily, but for the greater crime of thumbing his nose at God, for it is his arrangement. Put to death BY WHO becomes secondary. Maybe the avenger of blood. But if the avenger simply couldn't find it within himself to do it, it is hard to believe there would not be a posse or something to help him out or even take it off his hands.   Of course, if the real sin is thumbing one's nose at God, the avenger would probably be incensed over THAT and would possibly 'rise to the occasion' on that count, whereas the death itself he would be willing to forgive.   Does it work?
    • By JOHN DAVIS
      WHAT DO THE INNER ROOMS REPRESENT? AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT WE REMAIN OBEDIENT RIGHT NOW AT THIS TIME?
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Has the Society ever ruled on what happens if a man or woman abandons their spouse forever ... is the one abandoned stuck forever ?
    • Guest Nicole
    • By Bible Speaks
      A New World of Justice
      The Bible tells us what kind of rulership we can expect, rulership that all righthearted individuals now long for. Psalm 145:16 will then find fulfillment in its completest sense: “You [Jehovah God] are opening your hand and satisfying the desire of every living thing.”
      Moreover, Isaiah 32:1 says: “Look! A king [Christ Jesus in heaven] will reign for righteousness itself; and as respects princes [Christ’s earthly representatives], they will rule as princes for justice itself.” 
      Regarding the King Jesus Christ, Isaiah 9:7 foretells: “To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.” 
      http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/sysl/r1/lp-e?url=/en/wol/sydp/r1/lp-e/{rsconf}/{library}/r1/lp-e/2007606/null
       
      IMG_1281.mov
      Two pictures each moving and a GIF 

  • Forum Statistics

    62,105
    Total Topics
    116,949
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,537
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Returns
    Newest Member
    Returns
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.